ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fuel Laundering

Sammy Wilson: What discussions his Department has had with HM Treasury on loss of revenue as a result of fuel laundering in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: My Department has regular discussions with HM Treasury on a wide range of issues. Fuel fraud is primarily an excise offence and, therefore, an excepted matter that falls to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which works closely with the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland and its counterparts in Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: Despite the fact that over the past six years more than £2 billion has been lost in revenue as a result of criminal activities through fuel laundering, HMRC has taken only 28 cases to court, and there has been only one custodial sentence, which was suspended. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is an adequate response from HMRC or the court system in Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I appreciate his knowledge of this subject, as Minister of Finance and Personnel. He makes a very good point, which I have discussed with David Ford, the Minister of Justice. We have agreed that we should work together so that Northern Ireland sentences can be appealed against if considered too lenient.

Laurence Robertson: In the Select Committee’s recent report, we identified as a major problem the fact that a marker had not been developed sufficiently quickly. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with HMRC about the development of that marker, which would make fuel fraud and laundering far more difficult?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question and congratulate him on a very interesting report, which showed that real progress had been made—£250 million lost in forgone revenue down to £70 million, which is a major improvement. He makes a very good point about marking. There is an HMRC strategy and there is also a memorandum of understanding that has been signed with the Irish Revenue Commissioners. We keep in close touch on this matter.

Welfare Reform

Tom Clarke: What assessment he has made of the effects of welfare reform on Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: The reforms that we have introduced give us a rare opportunity to transform our welfare system into one that is fair to all, looks after the most vulnerable in society, and above all, always rewards work.

Tom Clarke: In view of recent criticisms of the Work programme and the Prime Minister’s view that housing benefit for the under-25s should be discontinued, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government’s policy is for youngsters? Is it to create jobs or simply to tolerate their exploitation?

Owen Paterson: I think the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the fact that the issue is devolved, and we are working closely with the devolved Minister with responsibility in this area and other Ministers in the Executive on the arrangements which will be debated shortly as the Bill is taken through the Assembly. It is very important that local circumstances are taken into account so that the Bill that emerges from the Assembly suits the circumstances in Northern Ireland.

Philip Hollobone: When does my right hon. Friend expect the Welfare Reform Bill to be introduced by the Executive?

Owen Paterson: I am in regular contact with Nelson McCausland, the relevant Minister, and he is optimistic that he will stick to the schedule, which will enable Northern Ireland to come on stream, as planned, with the Department for Work and Pensions here.

Jim Shannon: Many people in Northern Ireland view changes caused by welfare reform with increasing concern. Northern Ireland has had 30 years of a terrorist campaign. That has led to many people suffering disability, both physical and mental; 15,000 people in Northern Ireland are on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, and 180,000 people are on disability living allowance. Can the Secretary of State assure us that every step will be taken to ensure that the unique position of Northern Ireland is taken into account when it comes to the benefits system?

Owen Paterson: Nobody underestimates the terrible damage the troubles did to people physically and mentally, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that high rates of DLA are not unique to Northern Ireland; Merthyr Tydfil has a rate of 13%, which is very similar to that of Belfast. What I think is important is that for the first time each person will be treated as an individual, his circumstances will be taken into account and rehabilitation, re-education and training will be offered. That has not come about before.

Margaret Ritchie: Given that many benefit claimants in Northern Ireland have their payments paid directly into Ulster bank and, because of the ongoing debacle caused by the IT problems,
	have therefore been unable to access their only source of income and their own money, what assurance can the Secretary of State give that he has had robust discussions with RBS, his colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Northern Ireland Executive, to find a long-term solution to this agonising problem for many people, which has heaped on them misery upon misery?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the very real problems that people both in and out of work are suffering due to the IT breakdown. I raised the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday. Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of RBS, was in Northern Ireland on Monday and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State talked with him yesterday and is keeping in close touch. Ultimately, this is a problem for RBS to resolve internally, through Ulster bank, by getting the computer technology right, but the hon. Lady is right to raise the matter. This is causing horrendous problems not just for benefit claimants, but for those in regular employment.

Banking Reform

Mark Durkan: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the likely implications for Northern Ireland of banking reform and financial service regulation.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been in discussion with ministerial colleagues about this matter. The action plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Monday will drive up standards and bring much-needed and long overdue regulation to the sector.

Mark Durkan: The Minister will recognise that Ulster bank customers are currently experiencing a third-class, poor standard of care. Does he feel that there is some risk of a similar syndrome whereby Northern Ireland is only an afterthought in the hierarchy of consideration when it comes to wider banking regulation and reform? We all rightly ask about the banking of business, but should more active consideration be given to the future of the business of banking in the region, particularly given the compound implications of reform and regulation from London and the changing Irish banking landscape, including moves on banking union?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, as was recognised in his exchange with the Chancellor on 28 June, when the Chancellor acknowledged that
	“Northern Ireland has suffered enormously from the failure of banks in the UK and in the Republic, and it has paid perhaps a heavier price than anyone else”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 476.]
	On the specific point about banking reform, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a Banking Reform White Paper, the consultation period for which closes in September, so I urge him to contribute. On Ulster bank, I think we should be clear that this is not a failure of banking, but a failure of IT, and we should not confuse the two.

Nigel Dodds: On that point about Ulster bank and the failure of IT, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, but is it not frankly outrageous and unacceptable that 15 days after the problem first appeared, individuals, households and businesses still cannot access their money in the normal way? Can he outline in more detail what he and his colleagues in the Treasury are doing to provide a little more flexibility for those facing cash-flow problems?

Hugo Swire: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman and some of this colleagues are meeting Ulster bank and RBS this afternoon to represent the views of their constituents, and rightly so. Let us not underestimate this. There are people in the Northern Ireland Office who cannot get money either, so this is something very close to many of us. He will be aware of the press release that RBS issued this morning. It is fair to point out in my conversation yesterday with Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of RBS, he told me that they would
	“treat our customers properly and fairly”
	and that the bank will
	“compensate fully for financial loss”.
	We shall hold the bank to that undertaking.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for raising the issue of compensation, but does he agree that, as well as reimbursing customers for direct costs, Ulster bank and RBS must ensure that where financial damage and loss has occurred, whether to a customer, either an individual or business, or a non-customer who has suffered loss as a result of the crisis, compensation in full must be paid in all those circumstances? I would welcome his support in lobbying RBS on that point.

Hugo Swire: The right hon. Gentleman will certainly have the support of the Secretary of State and myself in ensuring that no one loses out as a result of this IT failure. I was specific on that point to Sir Philip Hampton and I cannot do more than repeat the words he said to me, as I have just done. I will also check with him on Monday to ensure that the bank is making progress in clearing up this sorry mess, which it says it will do over the weekend.

Vernon Coaker: Does the Minister agree that the ongoing problems at Ulster bank underline the need to look at how banks operate? Frankly, this is a crisis. Many families cannot pay their mortgages or rent, get their groceries, buy food or put petrol in the car, and older people cannot get access to their pensions. The Minister has told us what he has done, but what is he doing to try to sort this mess out?

Hugo Swire: I have a transcript of the shadow Secretary of State’s two interviews on the “Nolan” show, and I have read them carefully, but I am none the wiser as to what he is suggesting. When he was asked about the solvency of some businesses and about liquidity, he said that
	“I would expect that government here in Westminster but also government at Stormont needs to consider what to do in those particular circumstances.”
	Mr Nolan then asked:
	“What could they do?”
	The hon. Gentleman replied:
	“I don’t know the answer to that”.
	If he does not know the answer, we do: it is to make sure that this sorry debacle, involving an IT problem with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Ulster bank, which, let us face it, affected the whole UK, is cleared up quickly so that people can go about their normal business in Northern Ireland.

Vernon Coaker: What we have heard there is a complacent answer that does nothing to say to the people of Northern Ireland what should be done. What the Secretary of State and the Minister should have done, and what they should be doing now, is call an emergency summit—get a summit together—of all the people who are responsible for the situation, including the Treasury, Treasury officials and RBS senior management, and to get them to recognise the seriousness of the problem, get it sorted and get a grip. That is what the Minister should do.

Hugo Swire: I am not an IT expert, but I think that appearing on the “Nolan” show twice and saying absolutely nothing does not show tremendous activity. On the shadow Secretary of State’s further point about banking reform, he will be pleased that this Government have set up an independent commission on banking reform to look at the future of banking and to clear up something that his Government failed to do over 13 years—

Vernon Coaker: Complacent.

Hugo Swire: It is not complacent.
	This is another example of this Government walking around with a giant pooper-scooper to clear up the mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

Inward Investment

Julian Sturdy: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on attracting inward investment.

Hugo Swire: I have regular meetings with the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment to discuss how best we can support the Northern Ireland Executive in attracting inward investment and promoting growth. We have jointly agreed to invite ambassadors from the Gulf states, for example, to visit in the autumn in order to explore how we can promote investment and increase export opportunities.

Julian Sturdy: As with other parts of the UK, including my home city of York, Northern Ireland’s lower operational costs make it an attractive location for investment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do more to promote such areas if we are truly going to rebalance our economies?

Hugo Swire: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an ingenious connection between York and Northern Ireland—the only connection that attracted investment before was probably with the Vikings, who took an early interest in both areas.
	There are clearly tremendous advantages in Northern Ireland: it is not in the euro; it is extremely good in terms of education; it is a great place to live; and it has low costs, good IT, good connections and good transport connections. Yes, we can do more, but let us just look very carefully at how well Northern Ireland has done to date in attracting inward investment.

Stephen Pound: If we can move on from the battle of Clontarf, I must say that the Secretary of State is getting the reputation of being something of a one-club golfer when it comes to the Northern Ireland economy. When even yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph referred to a putative corporation tax as “an economic disaster”, one has to ask: does the Secretary of State have another driver in his bag, and will he or his caddy whip it out and show it to us?

Hugo Swire: We have many clubs, and we shall use them in the same way as they were used at the Open last week—with tremendous professionalism. The whole issue of corporation tax is a key thing that the joint group has been—

Stephen Pound: It is a disaster.

Hugo Swire: It is not a disaster; it is what we have been looking at very carefully.
	There are other things that we need to do to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, which both Governments over a successive number of years allowed to become far too dependent, for obvious reasons, and we will use any club available in our or anyone else’s bag to bring that about.

David Simpson: On a recent visit to my constituency, the Minister will have seen some of the inward investment there, but does he agree that it is imperative that Northern Ireland retains its 100% status for regional aid?

Hugo Swire: What is key, as I saw when I was with the hon. Gentleman, is planning, among other issues, which needs to be speeded up to facilitate inward investment and private sector investment, such as in the new supermarket in his constituency. Northern Ireland had automatic assisted area status, but that is not going to continue, and people in Northern Ireland mainly agree that other areas in the UK are now worse off than Northern Ireland.

Alasdair McDonnell: I inform the Minister that that is not agreed in Northern Ireland; all political parties there unanimously want Northern Ireland to retain 100% regional aid status because of the special circumstances and the poverty, under-employment, under-achievement and poor prosperity. Can the Minister assure us that he will persuade his colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to support that programme?

Hugo Swire: I do not think that I said that regional aid was not important; I merely said that, as part of rebalancing the economy and encouraging inward investment, we need to make sure that the 2014 map covers the areas of Northern Ireland that do need assistance. We no longer believe that it is justifiable, however, for Northern Ireland as a whole to have 100% automatic coverage.

Lady Hermon: In evidence to the Northern Ireland Committee, we were told by one witness—I should point out that it was only one witness—that we had one airport too many and that, instead of having both Belfast International airport and Belfast City airport, we should have only one. If such a daft idea were implemented, what impact does the Minister think it would have on economic investment coming to Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: A very negative one. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Northern Ireland justifies two airports. They are both thriving concerns and we have had some good news on air passenger duty. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is saying that I should not forget Eglinton airport either, and possibly others. We should certainly have Aldergrove and George Best Belfast City airports, which should thrive. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and I are very positive and optimistic; we are trying to attract more airlines to fly in and out of Northern Ireland to grow the economy. The hon. Lady is spot on.

Economic Development

Alok Sharma: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.

Owen Paterson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I meet regularly with Northern Ireland Ministers in support of their efforts to promote economic development and to help rebuild and rebalance the economy.

Alok Sharma: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Northern Ireland Executive to encourage them to set up enterprise zones?

Owen Paterson: I have regular discussions with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Minister of Finance. Last year’s Budget, which became the Finance Act 2011, made that facility available. There are 24 enterprise zones in England, four in Scotland and seven in Wales. They have the capacity also to have enhanced capital allowances. I am in favour of them as a benefit for Northern Ireland, but this is a devolved issue and a devolved decision.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic development in Northern Ireland would be much assisted by greater competition on the ferry routes in the Irish sea? A good start would be the restoration of the ferry link between Fleetwood and Larne.

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend is doing in trying to improve ferry links across the Irish sea. I cannot think of a better place to expand to than Fleetwood.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that economic development is being hampered in Northern Ireland by the lack of willingness among the banks to assist businesses through these difficult economic times? Surely the Government can do more to force the banks to assist our economy, bearing in mind that taxpayers are the ones who helped them in their hour of crisis.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. No one could have worked harder than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the First Secretary, who have been working with the banks ensuring that credit is freed up. Above all, let us not forget the complete mess that we inherited—the biggest deficit in western Europe. Through the robust measures that we have taken, we have kept the confidence of the international markets and have the lowest interest rates since the middle ages.

Londonderry (City of Culture)

Oliver Colvile: What assessment he has made of the likely effect on Londonderry of becoming the UK’s first city of culture; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) aspires to be a statesman; he should not be yelling across the Chamber—yes, you!

Hugo Swire: They don’t like it up ’em, Mr Speaker.
	My officials have been working closely with Derry-Londonderry Culture Company to ensure that the year-long programme will have social, economic, cultural and political benefits in the short term and as a legacy beyond 2013.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I also ask him what lessons the city of Plymouth can learn from the city of Londonderry-Derry in its bid to be the city of culture in 2014?

Hugo Swire: Of course, as a west country Member of Parliament I am hugely supportive of Plymouth. The whole issue of whether the city should be called Londonderry or Derry seems to be resolved, as we are now going to call it Legenderry. Plymouth is already legendary, not least on account of its excellent Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend should get his councillors to come over to Londonderry during its year as the city of culture, and I will introduce him to all the key players who are going to make it the most happening place in Europe.

Gregory Campbell: In promoting Londonderry as the first UK city of culture, does the Minister agree that job retention and job maintenance is a crucial factor? In that context, will he speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who I assume will make an announcement on this in a written statement today, to ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency offices are preserved in Northern Ireland so that 260 jobs are not lost in my constituency?

Hugo Swire: On the latter point, I understand that the Minister is putting out a written statement today, and I do not want to prejudge what he might say in that.
	On the longer-term economic benefits to Londonderry, yes, that is a vital issue. Of course, there will be a lot of prosperity around in the year that it is the city of culture, but that should be the building block to cement the renaissance that has gone on in the city, not least with the regeneration of the Ebrington barracks site and the peace bridge.

Security Situation

Nick Smith: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”. The Government remain fully committed to countering violence in all its forms and supporting the overwhelming majority of people who want to live without fear and intimidation.

Nick Smith: The Secretary of State is aware of the so-called punishment attacks by paramilitaries on young people in Northern Ireland. These attacks are increasing, particularly in Derry, by a group styling itself Republican Action Against Drugs. What every community needs is strong policing, not vigilantes. Will he proscribe this group? [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we are discussing the security situation in Northern Ireland? This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and I think that some display of attention would be appreciated by the people of Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. These attacks are barbaric and inhumane and have absolutely no place in a modern Northern Ireland. The only legitimate police force enforcing law and order is the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and it is for it to work with the community. On proscription, I keep all these issues under review.

Jack Lopresti: The Chief Constable of the PSNI, Matt Baggott, recently said that the Northern Ireland Executive must do more to tackle disadvantage in the areas where dissident republicans hold sway. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Executive to address this issue?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The second layer of our strategy in bearing down on these groups is to get into those communities, but nearly all the projects are in the hands of local Ministers. We strongly support the CSI—cohesion, sharing and integration—strategy, which we want to be published as soon as possible, because we believe that the future is a shared future, not a shared-out future.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Last night we had a briefing from senior retired police officers about the threat to national security
	from evidence that is being given in inquests in Northern Ireland that opens up the whole modus operandi of our security forces and security services. What do the Government intend to do to protect national security from this threat?

Owen Paterson: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. A whole number of legacy inquests—up to 32—are coming down the track. I would like to assure him formally that measures are in place under the existing arrangements that allow an inquest to go ahead fairly, but information that might be dangerous if released to individuals can be held back. There are measures that can be worked out, but the final decision rests with the coroner. Until now, these arrangements have worked well, and they will continue in their current guise.

Paul Goggins: Given that many of those historic inquests will doubtless require the disclosure of highly sensitive national security intelligence, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Justice Secretary about his decision not to provide for a closed material procedure in relation to inquests?

Owen Paterson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I have regular meetings with the Justice Secretary. I talked to him on the telephone this morning. [ Interruption. ] If the right hon. Gentleman would wait, I treat each case individually and remain in close touch with the local Justice Minister on such issues.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Fiona O'Donnell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 July.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the three British servicemen who were killed in Afghanistan in the appalling incident on Sunday, Guardsman Apete Tuisovurua and Guardsman Craig Roderick of 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and Warrant Officer Class 2 Leonard Thomas of the Royal Corps of Signals. We send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the servicemen who were killed in that tragic incident. They will never be forgotten by our nation.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am sure that the whole House will want to associate itself with the Prime Minister’s remarks and to send our deepest condolences to the families of the crew from RAF Lossiemouth who were lost earlier this week.
	Food prices rose by 4.6% between March last year and this year. I understand why, so will the Prime Minister spare me the lecture and tell the House what he is doing about food inflation?

David Cameron: First, I join the hon. Lady in what she said about the Tornado aircraft accident at RAF Lossiemouth. She is right that our thoughts should be with the friends, families and colleagues of those involved. The circumstances remain uncertain, but it was clearly a serious incident. The investigation is ongoing and more details will be released by the RAF in due course. It is a reminder of the risks that our service personnel take, not only when they are on active service, but when they are undergoing vital training for that service.
	On food inflation, I would first make the point that inflation is now falling in our country, which is extremely good news. It is vital that the food prices in our shops are not too hard on people’s budgets, but the way to keep inflation down is to have a responsible monetary policy, which is what we have in our country.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the serious banking difficulties must be dealt with, it is vital that we retain the central importance of the City of London, and that any reforms must be proportionate and not damage such a brilliant asset for our country?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to get to the bottom of what has happened and we have to do so quickly. In doing that, we should bear in mind the remarks of Richard Lambert, who ran the CBI very successfully for many years, who carried out an investigation for the Labour party and whom I respect a great deal:
	“the Libor scandal means that the required changes have to be tougher…that is the argument for a short, sharp inquiry. Going back to square one would, to put it mildly, be a serious mistake. The economy cannot recover in the absence of a stable banking system: nothing can be more urgent than that.”
	That is not the only consideration. We must get to the truth, but we should listen to such expert opinions as well.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Apete Tuisovurua, Guardsman Craig Roderick of 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and Warrant Officer Class 2 Leonard Thomas of the Royal Corps of Signals, who died in the most tragic of circumstances. Our hearts go out to their families and friends. I also join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the incident at RAF Lossiemouth.
	The banking scandals of the last week have revealed traders cheating and the mis-selling of insurance products to small businesses, and come on top of other scandals in the banking system and the continuing multi-million-pound bonus merry-go-round. How can the Prime Minister convince people that a parliamentary inquiry is a better way of restoring people’s confidence than a full, independent, forensic and open judge-led inquiry?

David Cameron: On the substance of the issue, there is no disagreement between us. This banking scandal is appalling. It is outrageous, frankly, that home owners may have paid higher mortgage rates and small businesses may have paid higher interest rates because of spivvy and probably illegal activity in the City. People want to know that crime in our banks and financial services will be pursued and punished like
	crimes on our streets. As well as people being held accountable, the public want rapid action to make sure that this cannot happen again.
	In my view, the most important thing about an inquiry is that it is swift and decisive, is set up as fast as possible, gets going as fast as possible, reports as fast as possible and is transparent and open at every stage. That is why I favour a public parliamentary inquiry rather than a judge-led inquiry. I want us to legislate on this, starting next year.

Edward Miliband: I do understand the Prime Minister’s concerns about speed, but there are concerns also that the inquiry that has been talked about is far too narrow, focused solely on the scandal of LIBOR when we know that the problems go much wider, to the culture and practices in the City. I believe, however, that there is a way forward that we could agree upon—that we have a two-part, judge-led inquiry that is instructed to report by Christmas on the scandal surrounding LIBOR, which is his timetable. The second part of the inquiry should look, over 12 months, at the much wider area of the culture and practices of the industry. That would satisfy his requirement of speed but also the necessary requirement to look at the wider culture and practices in the City. Will he agree to my proposal?

David Cameron: I always listen carefully to proposals from all parts of the House. Let me make three points in response. First, on the structure and future of banking, we set up the Vickers inquiry. It reported, and we are going to implement that inquiry, which will for the first time separate investment banking from retail banking. That is a major step forward. Secondly, the parliamentary inquiry that we are proposing is wider than the right hon. Gentleman says. It will look at the culture of banking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) confirmed this morning.
	My third point—all these points need to be considered—is that the Serious Fraud Office is still considering whether to launch a criminal investigation. While that is happening, there are dangers in opting for a judge-led inquiry, which might not be able to get under way. If we want to do this as fast as possible and get action as fast as possible, I think the way we have suggested is right. There was a vote last night in which the House of Lords voted against a public inquiry, and we have made time available on Thursday—this has not happened before—for an Opposition motion and a Government motion to be debated and voted on. Frankly, what matters more than the process is the substance and getting on with it. I hope we can accept the results on Thursday.

Edward Miliband: We were in exactly the same position a year ago, when the Prime Minister initially rejected the idea of a judge-led inquiry into the press scandal and then rightly changed his mind. In justifying that decision, he said:
	“I don’t believe there is any better process than an inquiry led by a judge”.
	He said that would happen with
	“the whole thing…pursued…by a team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1251.]
	Why is it right to have that judge-led approach to the scandal in the press but wrong for the scandal in the banks?

David Cameron: I think there is a very profound difference between the circumstances of the Leveson inquiry and the circumstances of this inquiry, because of course the Leveson inquiry followed a whole series of unsuccessful and failed inquiries. On this occasion we have had a very successful inquiry by the Department of Justice in America and the Financial Services Authority, which has uncovered the wrongdoing. Now what is required is swift inquiry, swift action and swift legislation. That is what you will get from this Government.

Edward Miliband: I do not think the Prime Minister has understood the depths of public concern and the depths of the lack of confidence. He says both that the inquiry that he proposes can be completed within essentially four months and that it can go as wide as it likes. That is simply not realistic. I have listened to his concerns and proposed a way forward. I ask him again for a two-part inquiry, with a judge, to complete the part on LIBOR on the Chancellor’s timetable—by Christmas—and then to look at the wider issues about the culture and practices of the City, of which there are many.

David Cameron: I understand the public concern about this issue, which is why I want us to get on with it. Frankly, it is this Government who are legislating to split the banks, as Vickers suggested; who are scrapping the tripartite agreement that failed so badly under the last Government; who have introduced the bank levy so that the banks pay their taxes properly; and who have introduced the most transparent regime for pay and bonuses in any financial centre anywhere in the world. As evidence that the House of Commons is getting on with it, we are going to see Bob Diamond questioned upstairs by the Treasury Select Committee this afternoon. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are having a vote in the House of Commons tomorrow—a vote on his motion and a vote on the Government motion. Clearly, if the Opposition motion wins, there will be a full independent public inquiry. I urge him to say now that if the Government motion is carried, he will co-operate with a full parliamentary inquiry.

Edward Miliband: I do not think the Prime Minister gets it about the depth of public concern. I hope that he will reconsider his position. He says that the Government are implementing the Vickers inquiry. On a very important issue that has come out in the past two weeks—high street banks selling dodgy products to small businesses—the Vickers commission said that it should never be allowed to happen again, yet after lobbying by the banks the Government rejected this basic recommendation of Vickers. In the light of the recent scandal, with small businesses damaged, will he now U-turn and implement the Vickers recommendations in full?

David Cameron: First, I will not take a lecture on getting it from a party that was in office for 13 years when all these things took place. On his specific question about the Vickers inquiry, let me repeat that it was set up by this Government and will be implemented by this Government—something that had not happened before. Under the inquiry, complex derivatives will be included in the investment bank ring fence, not in the retail banks, which we want to make safer. But let me just say this to the right hon. Gentleman: if he wants a quick
	resolution, he must accept the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons. I am prepared to do that. Why is he not?

Edward Miliband: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Government Back Benchers who have been here for some years ought to have grasped by now that it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to answer, so they should pipe down and try to be good boys, if they can.

Edward Miliband: If the Prime Minister wants a history lesson, let me repeat what he told the City of London on 28 March 2008:
	“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that”
	the problem “of the past decade” is “too much regulation”.
	Does that not say it all about the double standards of this Prime Minister? Whenever these scandals happen, he is slow to act and he stands up for the wrong people. The question people are asking is, “Who will act in the national interest, rather than the party interest?” His is a party bankrolled by the banks. If he fails to order a judge-led inquiry, people will come to one conclusion: he simply cannot act in the national interest.

David Cameron: Everybody can see what is happening here. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must calm down. I said it to Government Back Benchers and I am now saying it to Opposition Back Benchers: let the answer be heard.

David Cameron: The party opposite want to talk about absolutely everything apart from their record of 13 years in government. I have to say that we may have found the Higgs boson particle, but Labour has not found a sense of shame.

Esther McVey: Today is a hugely significant day for British scientists with the announcement of the Higgs boson discovery. Some 6,000 scientists worked on it worldwide—700 from the UK—and there was a major contribution from the north-west. A constituent of mine, Professor Phil Allport, head of particle physics at Liverpool university, led the ATLAS experiment. Will the Prime Minister confirm this Government’s commitment to science and to institutes in the north-west?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, the immense British contribution there has been to this extraordinary breakthrough—not least that of Higgs himself—and the extraordinary work that, as she says, is done in the north-west of England. It is a very big step forward and we should congratulate everyone involved. This Government’s commitment to the science budget is without any doubt, not least because although we have had to make difficult cuts, we have preserved the science budget.

Jim Shannon: The last 15 days have witnessed absolute chaos in the Ulster bank. Direct debits continue to be removed and wages have not been put into accounts. Ulster bank is owned by RBS. We, the people, have an 82% share in RBS, so the Government have a major say in what happens in the Ulster bank in Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the 100,000 Ulster bank
	customers that the Prime Minister and the Government will have a direct input in addressing this issue, and that normal banking will resume immediately?

David Cameron: I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this on behalf of his constituents. What happened is not acceptable. Clearly, it is an operational matter for the bank, but the Financial Services Authority has been monitoring this very closely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke yesterday to the chairman of RBS. The lessons must be learned, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that RBS has said that it will reimburse any customer for penalty charges or overdraft fees—anything that is incurred because of these difficulties.

Eric Ollerenshaw: To be blunt, my constituents and businesses are losing faith in their banks. What they need from the Prime Minister is a reassurance that there will be no more political skeletons in the cupboard left by the Labour party.

David Cameron: What matters for my hon. Friend’s constituents and, frankly, for everyone in this House is that we get to the bottom of what happened as quickly as possible. We have had a vote in the House of Lords; we will have a vote in the House of Commons; and then we need to get on with it. We are sent to this House to hold these inquiries, to find these facts, to pass these laws. Let us get on with it.

David Hanson: Yesterday, 117 manufacturing jobs were lost in my constituency on a rising trend of unemployment in north Wales. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that last week’s GDP figures showed that his Government’s performance was worse than he expected and requires change, and that the cause is his Government’s policies?

David Cameron: I very much regret any loss of jobs, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, particularly as, since the election, we have seen 800,000 extra jobs in the private sector. I am very concerned about the economic performance in Wales, which over the last decade or more has actually fallen further behind the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to work very hard with the Welsh Assembly Government to try to make sure that we are making Wales more competitive.

Stephen Lloyd: A key part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is that clinical change must be led by clinicians and patients. In my own hospital, the Eastbourne district general hospital, the majority of consultants have said that they have no confidence in the trust’s proposed clinical change, and the vast majority of the public in Eastbourne share that lack of confidence. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the local trust has to listen to the Act, the clinicians and local people in Eastbourne?

David Cameron: I can absolutely confirm that. Clearly, changes should not go ahead unless there is proper listening to local clinicians and local people. That is how our health service should operate. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be making an
	announcement shortly. The good news is that across the health service in-patient and out-patient waiting times are down, and we have the best ever performance for patients waiting for longer than 18 weeks to be treated. Added to that, the number of mixed-sex wards is down and rates of infection are down; the health service is doing well.

Anas Sarwar: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Crown Office in Scotland has confirmed that it has been carrying out an investigation, led by the serious crime division, into allegations that several banks, including state-owned RBS, have provided false information to financial markets. Does the Prime Minister back that investigation? Given the scale of the crisis and the scale of public anger, will he back a full, independent, judge-led inquiry and, crucially, will he give us a free vote in the House tomorrow?

David Cameron: There are two important things here. First, we should allow all the investigative authorities to carry out their investigations and take them wherever the evidence leads them. That is true for the Serious Fraud Office, and it is true for the Financial Services Authority—we need to ensure that they have the resources necessary to do that. Then we have to consider the nature of the inquiry. The problem with the suggestion the hon. Gentleman makes is that as these investigations are ongoing, it is actually easier to hold a rapid investigation within Parliament than to set up an investigation outside Parliament.

James Wharton: What message would the Prime Minister send to the emergency services, local authorities and communities across the north-east, which swung into action so effectively when the region was hit by flooding last week?

David Cameron: The first thing I would say is huge congratulations and thank you to the emergency services. I saw for myself—not in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but when I was in West Yorkshire—the incredible work that was done. The other thing to note is that whenever these things happen, there is an incredible coming together of community and social action to help people who have been flooded out of their homes. I am sure that everyone, in all parts of the House, will want to thank people for what they have done on others’ behalf.

Ian Lucas: On the question of a European referendum, is it the policy of the Prime Minister to be indecisive, or is he not sure?

David Cameron: I wonder how long in front of the bathroom mirror that one took. The point is this. There are two things that would not be right: the first would be to hold an in/out referendum now—I do not think that is the right approach—and the second would be to rule it out for all time. I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy is.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that central to any reforms of banking must be, from the point of view of ordinary punters,
	two things: first, the proposals which we are already working up to ensure that people can move their accounts quickly, cheaply and easily; and secondly, an absolute guarantee that Governments will never again bail out banks?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes two very important points. On the first point, about people being able to move their bank accounts, that will be in place later this year. On the issue of bailing out banks, we need to put in place mechanisms so that banks can fail without calling on taxpayers to support them. That resolution regime, which for 13 years was left untouched by Labour, has been dealt with by this Government.

Graham Stringer: The euro now has a solid record of destroying jobs and democracy throughout Europe. The Prime Minister is failing to repatriate any powers or resources to this country. When is he going to stop dithering and allow the electorate in this country to have a referendum on the European Union to decide whether to stay in or get out of that mess?

David Cameron: We have repatriated one power, which is that we have got out of the bail-out that the last Government put us into, and that is saving us billions of pounds. If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, he should be sitting on this side of the House rather than that side.

David Morris: I want to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention away from banking for one moment—[ Interruption ]—and the Opposition’s attention—to more important matters: children’s lives in my constituency. Five children in my constituency have been involved in an accident on a crossing outside St Peter’s school in Heysham. I know this is a county council matter, but I would like the Prime Minister to assist me in trying to get a crossing outside St Peter’s school.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise a constituency case such as this, where so many people have lost their lives and where there is such a threat to safety. I will certainly look at what he says. As he says, it is a matter for the county council, but if I can help him to put his case, I will be pleased to do so.

Jonathan Ashworth: Leicester is bearing the brunt of the Prime Minister’s double-dip recession, with the sad news today that yet another business is going under, resulting in the loss of local jobs. In that context, was he as disappointed as I was at the figures released last month showing that lending to small businesses was down by £1.7 billion? Is it not clear that the Chancellor’s credit easing policies are not working?

David Cameron: The credit easing policy—the national loan guarantee scheme—is going to make available £20 billion of extra loans; some of that money is already available. The Merlin scheme saw lending to small businesses go up in 2011. It is difficult when the banks are nervous about the economic situation, but the Treasury and the Bank of England are doing all that
	they can, including through the Merlin agreement, to get money out of the banks and into hard-pressed businesses.

Peter Tapsell: If, as a result of this shameful banking crisis, bank executives are dismissed or forced to resign, and the boards of their banks fail to act appropriately, will the Government do their best to ensure that the delinquents are not able to walk away with their bonuses and severance payments?

David Cameron: The Father of the House makes an extremely good point. It would be completely wrong if people who were leaving in those circumstances were given some vast pay-off. It would be completely inexplicable to the British public, and it would not be right. I very much hope that it does not happen. In terms of what the Government can do, we are going to legislate so that all pay deals are put to shareholders with a binding vote, and those deals should include any severance payments. The party opposite had 13 years to do that; we are going to do it in two.

Michael Meacher: Given that the richest 1,000 persons in Britain made gains of £155 billion in the past three years of austerity, why will the Government not charge those gains at the capital gains tax rate, which would bring in about £40 billion? That would be enough, without any increase in public borrowing, to generate 1 million or more jobs. It would be far better to cut the deficit in that way—through growth, rather than through the Chancellor’s failed slump.

David Cameron: I hate to remind the right hon. Gentleman, but he was a Minister in the Government whose capital gains tax rules meant that people in the City were paying less in tax than their cleaners were paying. We have lifted the rate of capital gains tax to 28% so that we have a fairer system.

Duncan Hames: The pupils I met recently at Corsham primary school told me, in their own creative ways, that they liked to learn together. They know, however, that many children in other countries never get that chance. How will the Prime Minister, as chair of the United Nations high-level panel on the millennium development goals, restart efforts to ensure that all girls and boys around the world go to school?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many of us will have seen the “Send my Friend to School” campaign in our own constituencies; it is a brilliant way of teaching young people the importance of showing responsibility for those on the other side of the world who do not have the advantages that they do. Our aid is currently supporting 5.3 million children in primary education, and we hope to up that to 9 million people by 2014, so the Government are playing their part, but we want all of civil society—schools, parents and teachers—to join in that magnificent effort.

Nigel Dodds: In addition to what the Prime Minister said earlier about the Ulster bank crisis in Northern Ireland, in which households, individuals and businesses are being denied even basic
	banking facilities, will he and the Chancellor talk to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that some flexibility will be shown towards the liabilities of those households, individuals and businesses so that they can be helped through the cash-flow problems that are the result of problems that they did not create?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at what the right hon. Gentleman says. As I said, RBS has said that it will ensure that people do not lose out through banking charges, but I will discuss his point about HMRC with the Chancellor.

Margot James: I welcome the Government’s commitment to women and girls at the heart of their development policy. As this weekend’s Tokyo conference on the future of Afghanistan approaches, will the Prime Minister consider making aid to Afghanistan conditional on the protection of the hard-won rights of women and girls, which, as he knows, are under attack?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Whereas in 2001 fewer than 1 million children—and, of course, no girls—were attending school in Afghanistan, today 6 million children regularly attend school and 2 million of them are girls. I will reflect carefully on what she says about our aid programme and discuss it with the Secretary of State. It is important that we attach conditions and have real transparency and proper results from our aid. I think that is the only way we can take people with us as we continue to expand our aid budget at a time of economic difficulty at home. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue because if we want a stable and prosperous as well as a safe Afghanistan, we need an Afghanistan where the role of women is properly respected.

Michael McCann: May I give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer the question put to him a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar)? If the Prime Minister believes in the sovereignty of Parliament, will he confirm that there will be a free vote across the House tomorrow?

David Cameron: There was a vote last night in the House of Lords when Labour peers were heavily whipped to vote for the Labour position. I have a clear view, the Government have a clear view and the whole of the coalition Government have a clear view about the right way ahead. There will be a motion for the Labour party, which they can vote for, and a motion for us, which we can vote for. Let me put this one more time to the Leader of the Opposition: I will be bound by a vote for a full public inquiry; will he be bound if the House votes for a parliamentary inquiry? If he cannot answer that question, people will take a very dim view of an
	Opposition party that stands in the way of an inquiry because they do not want their dirty washing done in public.

Andrew Stephenson: The Olympics provide a great opportunity to bring our nation together. Does the Prime Minister therefore share my dismay at the plans of some union leaders to disrupt this summer’s events?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Unite union is encouraging strikes on our buses in London. The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about standing up to vested interests, but what have we heard from him on the trade union movement? Absolutely nothing, and the whole country will be listening to that. We want a strike-free Olympics, and Labour should talk to its paymasters about it.

Pat Glass: We all witnessed last week’s storms across the country. My own village of Lanchester hit the headlines because of the floods. We are all grateful to the police, the fire brigade, Durham county council and the Weardale mountain rescue service, but will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will be there with real money to support these people and these agencies, and not offer just nice warm words?

David Cameron: Of course we will be there to do that. We are investing around £2 billion in future flood defences. Of course, all the emergency services have done an excellent job, and they remain ready to carry out further work if necessary. I also think the Government should lend a very sympathetic ear to the local councils and local organisations that are setting up hardship funds to help families, perhaps those that do not have insurance or cannot afford the excess when it comes to dealing with their problems. I have said to the Department for Communities and Local Government that we should be generous in helping people to get their lives back together again.

George Freeman: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the news that over £1 billion has been raised in the last six months for start-ups in our life science sector—more than in the last three years combined? Does he agree that this is a massive statement of confidence in our innovation economy and in our policies to make Britain a place to do business?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has a close interest in life sciences and pharmaceutical industries, and knows a lot about what he speaks. One of the successes with part of the EU patent court coming to London is that the patents that cover life sciences, pharmaceuticals and similar industries will be in London as well. That means many, many jobs and tens of millions of pounds of investment in this industry and in our capital city.

NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives

Andrew Lansley: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about my first annual report to Parliament on the health service, published today alongside the report on the NHS constitution and the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board.
	This year the NHS has made major progress in the transition to a new system: a system based on clinical leadership, patient empowerment and a resolute focus on improving outcomes for patients. In a year of change, as the annual report shows, NHS staff have performed admirably. Waiting times remain low and stable, below the level at the election, and the number of people waiting over a year is the lowest ever. Today only 4,317 patients are waiting more than a year for treatment, dramatically fewer than in May 2010. Nationally, all NHS waiting time standards for diagnostic tests and cancer treatment have been met. The £600 million cancer drugs fund has helped more than 12,500 patients to gain access to drugs that were previously denied to them.
	We have extended screening programmes, potentially saving an extra 1,100 lives of sufferers from breast and bowel cancer every year by 2015. More than 90% of adult patients admitted to hospital—about a quarter of a million every week—are now assessed for venous thromboembolism, or blood clots, in what is a world-leading programme of its kind. In 2011-12, 528,000 people began treatment under the expanded improving access to psychological therapies programme—up from just 182,000 in 2009-10—and almost half have said that they have recovered. Following the success of the telehealth and telecare whole system demonstrator programme, which included a 45% fall in mortality, we are on course to transform the lives of 3 million people with long-term conditions over the next five years.
	The NHS is also improving people’s experience of care. Patients are reporting better outcomes for hip and knee replacements and hernia repairs. In the latest GP patient survey, 88% of patients rated their GP practices as good or very good, and the result of the out-patient survey shows clear improvements in the cleanliness of wards and the number of patients reporting that they were treated with respect and dignity. MORI’S independent “Public Perceptions of the NHS” survey shows that satisfaction with the NHS remains high, at 70%. Mixed-sex accommodation breaches are down by 96%, MRSA infections are down by 25%, and clostridium difficile infections are down by 17% in the year.
	Real progress is also being made in public health. More than 570,000 families have signed up to Change4Life, and our support for the School Games and Change4Life sports clubs in schools is helping to secure the Olympic legacy. The responsibility deal has seen the elimination of artificial trans fats, falling levels of salt in our diets, and better alcohol labelling. By the end of the year, more than 70% of high street fast food and takeaway chains will show the number of calories on their menus. To drive forward research in key areas such as dementia, I have announced a record £800 million for 11 National Institute for Health Research centres and 20 biomedical research units.
	All that, and a million more people have access to NHS dentists; every ambulance trust is meeting its call response times; 96% of patients are waiting less than four hours in accident and emergency departments; quality, innovation, prevention and productivity—QIPP—savings across the NHS were £5.8 billion in the first year of the efficiency challenge; and NHS commissioning bodies delivered a £1.6 billion surplus, carried forward into the current financial year. All that, and a new system is taking shape. The NHS Commissioning Board has been established; health and wellbeing boards are preparing to shape and integrate local services; 212 clinical commissioning groups, which are already managing more than £30 billion in delegated budgets, are preparing to lead local services from April next year; and we are starting to measure outcomes comprehensively for the first time. Far from buckling under pressure, NHS staff—with the right leadership and the right framework—are performing brilliantly.
	As well as the NHS annual report, I am today publishing a report on the NHS constitution. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 strengthens the legal foundation for the constitution, and includes a duty for commissioners and providers to promote and use it. This report—the first by a Secretary of State—will help commissioners and providers to assess how well the constitution has reinforced the principles and values of the NHS; the degree to which it has supported high-quality patient care; and whether patients, the public and staff are aware of their rights.
	I am grateful to the NHS Future Forum and its chair, Professor Steve Field, for their advice on the effect of the NHS constitution. I have asked them whether there is further scope to strengthen the principles of the constitution before a full public consultation in the autumn. Any amendments would be reflected in a revised constitution, published by April 2013.
	Rooted in the values of the constitution, we will drive further improvement across the NHS through a set of objectives called the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. I am publishing the draft mandate today. The mandate will redefine the relationship between Government and the NHS, with Ministers stepping back from day-to-day interference in the service. Through the mandate, we will set the board’s annual financial allocation and clearly set out what the Government expect it to achieve with that allocation, based on the measures set out in the NHS outcomes framework. Those include both measures of quality, such as whether people recover quickly from treatment, and the experience of those cared for, including whether they are treated as well as they would expect, and whether they would be happy for family and friends to be cared for similarly. The mandate will promote front-line autonomy, giving clinical commissioners the freedom and flexibility to respond to local needs—freedoms balanced by accountability.
	Each year, the board will state how it intends to deliver the objectives and requirements of the mandate, and it will report on its performance at the end of that year. The Secretary of State will then present to Parliament an assessment of the board’s performance. If there are particular concerns, Ministers will, for example, ask the board to report publicly on what action it has taken, or ask the chair to write a letter setting out a plan for improvement.
	Today’s publication of the draft mandate marks the beginning of a 12-week consultation. I look forward to working with patients, clinicians, staff and other stakeholders to finalise the mandate in the autumn.
	These documents show how a new, exciting chapter is opening up for the NHS. Starting with strong performance and robust finances, we are driving towards integrated services and community-based care. This heralds a new era for the NHS, based on openness and transparency and focused on what matters most to patients: health outcomes, care quality, safety and positive experience of care. It heralds an era in which every part of the NHS—the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups and health-care providers—is publicly held to account for what is achieved. For the first time, Parliament, patients and the public will know exactly how the NHS is performing locally, nationally and by way of international comparison. This will be a new era in which patients are more in control, where clinicians lead services, and where outcomes are among the best in the world.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State today presents his first annual report—an annual report on a lost year in the NHS. Just when the NHS needed stability to focus all its energy on the money, what did he do? He pulled the rug from underneath it, with a reorganisation no one wanted and that this Prime Minister promised would never happen.
	In fact, we have had not one, but two lost years in the NHS, as this Secretary of State has obsessed on structures and inflicted an ideological experiment on the NHS that made sense to him but, sadly, to no one else. It was his decision to allow the dismantling of existing structures before new ones were in place, which has led to a loss of financial grip at local level in the NHS. He mentioned QIPP savings. The truth is that two-thirds of NHS acute trusts—65%—are reported to have fallen behind on their efficiency targets. So we see temporary ward and accident and emergency closures, a quarter of walk-in centres closing across England, panic plans to close services sprouting up wherever we look, and crude, random rationing across the NHS, with 125 separate treatments—including cataracts, hip replacements and knees—being restricted or stopped altogether by one primary care trust or another. This is an NHS drifting dangerously towards trouble, or, in the words of the chief executive of the NHS Confederation,
	“a supertanker heading for an iceberg”.
	Let us remember that even before the added complexity of today’s mandate, the Secretary of State has already saddled his new board with an Act of Parliament that even the chair of that board, whom he appointed, calls “unintelligible”. Listening to the Secretary of State today, one could not but conclude that he cannot be looking at the same NHS as the head of the NHS Confederation. The statistics he just reeled off do not include the people who give up waiting in A and E, who have their operation cancelled, who cannot get a GP appointment for days or who cannot get into hospital in the first place because his Government are restricting
	access to operations. Perhaps that explains why the year that he hails as a great success was the same year that saw the biggest ever fall in public satisfaction with the national health service according to the British social attitudes survey.
	Let me challenge the Secretary of State on this growing gap between Ministers’ statements and people’s real experience of the NHS. He has said that there will be no rationing by cost, but I have news for him: it is happening on his watch, right across the system, with a whole host of restrictions on important treatments and a postcode lottery running riot. Where is the instruction in the draft mandate to stop it and deliver on the promise that he and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), made to patients? It is not there.
	Let me turn to bureaucracy and targets. First, the Government said that they would scrap the four-hour A and E and 18-week targets; then they brought them back. Now they have gone further and adopted Labour’s guarantees, but they have gone even further today and have added a whole new complex web of outcomes and performance indicators for the NHS. The NHS needs simplicity and clarity, but what it has received today from this Secretary of State is a dense document with 60 outcome indicators grouped within five domains. I hope it is clear to him, because it will not be clear to anyone else. Will he treat the House again to his explanation of the difference between an outcome indicator and a target? The fact is there is not one and he is loading a whole new set of targets and burdens on to a NHS that is already struggling to cope with the challenges it is facing.
	It will not have escaped people’s notice that today the Secretary of State was silent on the biggest issue of all: the unfolding crisis in adult social care. Out there in the real world, councils are not coping, services are collapsing and that is placing intolerable pressure on hospitals. He promised a White Paper soon on service change, but nothing on funding. Has he given up on the Dilnot proposals and the challenge of finding a fairer and more sustainable funding system?
	Before we let the Secretary of State go today, the House needs to ask to whom this mandate is being given. We are witnessing the democratic responsibility and accountability to this House for the organisation that matters more to our constituents than any other being outsourced and handed over to an unelected and unaccountable board.
	Another major announcement is taking place today on the review of the arrangements for children’s heart surgery. It will not have escaped people’s notice, however, that the Secretary of State did not mention that review in his statement. He said that Ministers are stepping back, and I think people in this House know what that means—it is now nothing to do with him. All these changes will take place and he will not be responsible.
	What assurances can the Secretary of State give to right hon. and hon. Members that his new board will listen to their concerns? Who are the people on that board? With trademark catastrophic timing, we learn that he has given a leading role in the running of the NHS to—yes—the vice-chair of Barclays, none other than Mr Diamond’s right-hand man and someone who
	has given £106,000 in donations to the Conservative party. If that does not sum up this Government, I do not know what does.
	We know the real mandate that the Secretary of State has given his new board—and that is a mandate for privatisation. He promised it would not happen, but it is happening with community services being outsourced. No wonder there is a crisis of leadership, with one third of directors of public health not planning to transfer to local authorities. Is it not the simple truth that the Secretary of State inherited a successful, self-confident NHS and, in just two years, has reduced it to a service that is demoralised, destabilised and fearful of the future? The man who promised to listen to doctors has completely ignored them, and now they are calling for his resignation. Despite all his claims today, the supertanker is still heading towards an iceberg. He gave us a new mandate when what we really needed was a change of direction and a change of personnel.

Andrew Lansley: At no point did the shadow Secretary of State express any appreciation for what the staff of the NHS have achieved in the past year. A party political rant populated with most of his misconceptions and poorly based arguments does not get him anywhere.
	The right hon. Gentleman went around the country trying to drum up something he could throw at us about things that he believed were going wrong in the NHS. Do you know what he ended up with, Mr Speaker? He ended up by saying the NHS was rationing care. What was the basis for that? That parts of the NHS have restrictions on weight-loss surgery, because people have to be obese before they have access to it. That is meaningless. I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State this morning, and went through his so-called health check. There is no such ban on surgery as he claims. Time and again, he says, “Oh, they are rationing.” They are not, because last year, the co-operation and competition panel produced a report that showed where there had been blanket bans on NHS services under a Labour Government. We introduced measures to ensure that that would not happen in future across the service. Not only is he not giving the NHS credit for the achievements that I listed in detail in my statement but he is now pretending that the NHS is somehow in chaos or financial trouble. It is complete nonsense. Across the NHS, only three primary care trusts out of 154 were in deficit at the end of the year. The cumulative surplus across all the PCTs and strategic health authorities is £1.6 billion carried forward into this financial year.
	That means that the NHS begins 2012-13 in a stronger financial place than anyone had any right to expect, because it is delivering better services more effectively, with GP referrals reduced, and reduced growth in the number of patients attending emergency departments. The right hon. Gentleman asked, “What about patients who leave A and E without being seen?” Under the Labour Government, no one ever measured whether patients left A and E without being seen. For the first time, we are measuring that, and we publish the results in the A and E quality indicators. There was a variation between about 0.5% and 11% of patients leaving without being seen when we first published that, but since then the variation has reduced. The average number has gone down, and it is now at 3%, so he ought to know his
	facts before he stands up at the Dispatch Box and begins to make accusations. We published those facts for the first time.
	I will not reiterate the A and E target, because I mentioned it in the statement, but 96% of patients are seen within four hours in A and E. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw all those absurd propositions that the NHS is not delivering. He should get up when next he can and express appreciation to the NHS for what it is achieving. Patients do so: last year, 92% of in-patients and 95% of out-patients thought that they had good or excellent care from the NHS, which is as high as in any previous year. That is what patients feel. Staff should be proud of what they achieve in the NHS, and the Labour party should be ashamed of itself.

David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend’s statement, which is very positive, will be widely welcomed, particularly what he said about low waiting times. He said that patients in future will be more in control. Is he referring to the personal health budgets in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and does he expect a greater range of treatments to be available on the health service in future?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many ways in which we can improve the control that patients can exercise, including greater opportunities for patients to exercise choice. In my announcement today, that includes the opportunity for patients to choose alternative providers of NHS care if, for example, the standard of 18 weeks that the constitution sets is not met. I might say that, at the last election, 209,000 patients were waiting for treatment beyond 18 weeks. That number has been brought down to 160,000.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point about the exercise of control on the part of patients, who have an opportunity to access clinically appropriate care through the NHS. We will make sure that that is available and, as he knows, in relation to homeopathic treatments, for example, we have maintained clinicians’ ability across the service to make such treatments available through the NHS when they think that it is appropriate to do so.

Kevin Barron: I have not been able to read the annual report in the last few minutes, but may I ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it gives any information on the benefits of high-street pharmacy companies taking over the running of hospital pharmacies?

Andrew Lansley: No, the annual report makes no reference to that. It refers—I hope, for the first time—in detail to the performance of the NHS over the past year. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any issues about that, I shall be glad to respond to him separately.

Alun Cairns: I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the annual report. Is he aware that the National Audit Office published a report last week on variations in the NHS across the United Kingdom? It specifically reported that life expectancy in Wales was lower than in other parts of the UK; there were fewer GPs per patient; longer hospital stays in Wales; and longer hospital waiting lists. Will he reassure me, in the light of his
	statement and of the NAO report, that he will not take any lessons from the Labour party, because it is responsible for running the health service in Wales that my constituents have to put up with, sometimes tragically?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—in fact, an excellent series of points. On his behalf I am glad to send to the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Labour Government in Wales a copy of the annual report for England, perhaps inviting her to publish a similar report in Wales. As the NAO said, and, indeed, as the Wales Audit Office said, only 60% or, on the latest data, only 68% of patients in Wales waiting for treatment accessed it within 18 weeks—the right under the NHS constitution—whereas in the NHS in England, the figure is 92%.

John Healey: NHS staff and patients simply do not have the same rosy view of the NHS as the Secretary of State. When a Government-commissioned survey asked people last summer what they thought of the NHS, why had satisfaction with the NHS plummeted from 70% to 55% in just a year under the Secretary of State?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, because MORI conducted an independent survey last December after the survey conducted on behalf of the King’s Fund. The survey said that 70% of people were satisfied with the running of the NHS; 77% agreed that their local NHS provided a good service; and 73% agreed that England had one of the best national health services in the world—the highest level ever recorded in that survey.

Andrew George: I am pleased and reassured by the comments from the Secretary of State on outcomes, which he said were among the best in the world. In view of that, would he perhaps reconsider whether it is wise to press ahead with such disruptive and damaging reforms?

Andrew Lansley: One reason why the NHS continues to deliver such significant improvements in performance is that through the transition, we are increasing clinical leadership, which will make an important, positive difference, and can already be shown to have done so. For example, we are managing patients more effectively in the community, and reducing reliance on acute admission to hospital. The number of emergency admissions to hospital in the year just ended went down, which is a strong basis on which to develop services in future, and that is happening not least because of leadership in the primary care community. I hope that my hon. Friend from Cornwall, along with other Members, supports the assumption of clinical leadership through clinical commissioning groups by those clinicians.

Valerie Vaz: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the former Chair of the Select Committee on Health, I have not had sight of the report, but will the Secretary of State say what the cost to the public purse of the pause and the reorganisation will be?

Andrew Lansley: I think that the hon. Lady knows that the figure is in the order of £1.2 billion to £1.3 billion. She also knows that, during this Parliament, we will deliver, as a result of the changes, reductions in bureaucracy and administration costs across the NHS, which cumulatively will be in of the order of £5.5 billion.

David Davies: Is the Minister also aware that the National Audit Office report shows without doubt that deep and damaging cuts are taking place within the national health service, but that they are all happening in Wales? Does he agree that the last thing we need is to see that repeated in England by allowing these people control of our NHS?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. There is only one part of the United Kingdom where the health service is being run by a Labour Government—in Wales, and that is the only part of the United Kingdom where the Government are deliberately cutting the budget of the NHS. We should not be surprised. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State, at the time of the last election and afterwards, told people that they should cut the budgets, and Labour in Wales did it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: On the whole, if at all possible, and it is not always possible, I prefer to avoid sibling rivalry so I shall now call Mr Keith Vaz.

Keith Vaz: May I declare my interest as a type 2 diabetic and say how disappointed I am that the Secretary of State did not mention diabetes in his statement today? Fifty per cent. of adult diabetics have not had the nine care processes that are necessary. Will he ensure that commissioning groups are asked to ring-fence resources to help with diabetes prevention?

Andrew Lansley: There are many conditions from which patients suffer that I did not mention in the statement because the purpose of the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board is to improve the quality of services across the board, and the objectives we are looking for are about improvement across the whole service, rather than trying to isolate and identify individual conditions. But the NHS Commissioning Board will indeed go about the task of doing so. In recent years we have increased the proportion of patients with diabetes who have access to the nine recommended processes, and I know we will increase the number in future. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention, among the figures reflected in the report, the fact that, at the end of 2011-12, 99% of people with diabetes had been offered screening for diabetic retinopathy in the previous 12 months—an increase from 98.6% in the preceding quarter.

Sarah Wollaston: I particularly welcome the inclusion of the patient experience in the outcome framework. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that commissioners and communities can clearly access the patient experience data so that they can see the real value that communities can place on community hospitals, and may I urge him to set out a clear database of community hospitals across England so that it can be much more readily available?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that measuring patients’ experience of care is very important. Although there was and continues to be an NHS patients survey, there are many areas of patients’ experience that it did not reflect. For example, we received yesterday the first of the VOICES—views of informal carers for the evaluation of services—a survey of the experience of bereaved families of the quality of end-of-life care that their family member received. That is part of the process of ensuring that for the future we understand, measure and respond to the views of bereaved families about the quality of care they received. That is just one illustration. Another is for the very first time measuring the experience of care reported by young people below the age of 16. There is a complex inter-relationship with the specific benefits of community hospitals in individual locations, but I hope that one of the things we will be able to do is look at the data, which will be disaggregated across the country, and increasingly see what most contributes to the high levels of patient experience in different parts of the country.

Derek Twigg: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating NHS staff on their hard work and dedication, which is even more remarkable given the disastrous reorganisation they are having to work through at present. The Secretary of State talks about the new era. Can he today in Parliament rule out any additional charges anywhere in the NHS for patients who use the NHS in the next few years?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I said during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that it had been intensively considered in its every aspect. The Act expressly rules out the introduction of any charges across the NHS, other than by further primary legislation, and there is no primary legislation to permit such a thing. So I reiterate the point: there will be no additional charging for treatment in the NHS.

Chris Skidmore: Many of my constituents are concerned that under the Labour Government £11 billion of PFI contracts were signed, which will cost the NHS over £60 billion to pay back. They are concerned that PFI, Labour’s toxic legacy to the NHS, has the potential to bankrupt many health trusts. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents about possibly renegotiating some of these contracts?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When the shadow Secretary of State was attempting to suggest that there were trusts in trouble across the country, he might have had the humility to admit that the hospital trusts in the greatest difficulty are the ones that were saddled with unsustainable debt by the Labour Government’s poorly negotiated PFI projects. He might have instanced Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Monitor wrote to him and his colleagues, telling them that that PFI project should not have proceeded. The Labour Government went ahead with it anyway and it is now unsustainable.
	We have been very clear. We have gone through a process of identifying where trusts can manage, not least with us assisting them. In the latter part of last year we identified seven trusts that we will step in and support if we believe that they are otherwise unable to restore their finances to good health. It will entail about
	£1.5 billion of total support for them to be able to pay for their PFI projects. Where there are opportunities for renegotiation we will exercise them, but unfortunately it is in the nature of coming into government that we inherit what the previous Government left us. We were left with 102 hospital—
	[Interruption.]
	The shadow Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that they were our PFI schemes. No NHS PFI scheme was signed before the Labour Government took office in 1997. Two years ago we inherited 102 hospital projects with £73 billion of debt, yet the Opposition thought that in the years before they had used taxpayers’ money to build these new hospitals. No, they did not. They saddled the NHS for 30 years with that debt.

Dave Watts: Talking about waste, will the Secretary of State explain why his Department has wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on consultancy fees looking at my acute trust, and why his Department refuses to publish the reports? Could it be that they are a complete waste of time?

Andrew Lansley: In the year before the election the Department of Health spent about £110 million on consultancy and we reduced it to £10 million. I will tell the hon. Gentleman about waste. In the past two years we have already racked up £1.4 billion of administration savings across the NHS—money that goes straight back into the front line. The Department is having to do work in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s hospital at Whiston only because of the PFI deal that his Government signed before the last election. We will have to help St Helen’s and Knowsley trust deal with that debt in the future.

David Rutley: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the progress that East Cheshire clinical commissioning group is making in building a collaborative approach to delivering health care in the Macclesfield area? Does he believe that other areas could benefit from observing the constructive approach being taken there?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Paul Bowen from his clinical commissioning group when I visited Blue Coat school in Liverpool. Leaders of clinical commissioning groups from across the north-west came together and many of them are already exercising 100% delegated responsibility for local commissioning budgets and showing how they can improve services using that. We know that in a financially challenging environment reducing cost is important, but redesigning services to deliver care more effectively with the resources available is even more important, and that is precisely what the clinical leadership in those groups is doing.

Gloria De Piero: In Ashfield in the past year the number of people waiting in accident and emergency for more than four hours has almost doubled, we have lost our NHS walk-in centre, and there are now proposals to close our community hospital. Why does the Secretary of State think these things are happening?

Andrew Lansley: As I made clear in my statement, according to the latest data 96.5% of patients in A and E are assessed, treated and discharged within four hours. The
	right hon. Member for Leigh asked about the difference between a target and an outcome, but the point is that it is not enough to measure whether a patient has been seen and treated within four hours; the issue is the quality of treatment they receive, which is why our A and E quality indicators go further. The hon. Lady and I have had correspondence on this—I will be glad to look back and ensure that I have kept it up to date—so she knows that there has been a review of walk-in centres and that there is a need for people to have access not only to emergency departments, but to urgent care in a way that does not entail having to wait for a long time in A and E. I do not remember all the details, but I recall that some of the services offered in one walk-in centre in her constituency were being transferred to another that was adjacent to the A and E.

John Pugh: I welcome the statement. In order fully to fulfil the NHS mandate, we need to raise NHS staff morale. What plans does the Secretary of State have for doing that?

Andrew Lansley: I think that what most gives staff a sense of motivation and morale, in any organisation in any walk of life, is being more in control of the service they deliver. That is evidenced across many areas of economic and service activity. That is what we are doing for the NHS. Whether in foundation trusts or clinical commissioning groups, staff will feel that they have more control over the service they deliver. Consequently, I believe that as we see the figures improve it will be less a case of politicians interfering, or even trying to take credit, and much more a case of NHS staff taking credit for the services they deliver.

Hugh Bayley: Last week the board of the NHS North Yorkshire and York primary care trust cluster received a financial position statement that identified the need for cuts of £230 million, plus unfunded costs pressures of £55 million a year, and noted that
	“the risks would grow even greater as it moved from a single organisation…to five much smaller clinical commissioning groups.”
	Many treatments are already not available to patients in North Yorkshire and York, even though they are available to those in neighbouring areas. Bariatric surgery, for example, is available to people elsewhere with a body mass index of 40, but people in North Yorkshire and York have to be much more obese, with a body mass index of 50, to get it. Will the Secretary of State look at that report, make a thoughtful response and put both in the Library of the House so that Members can see how this financial crisis in the North Yorkshire and York primary care trust is being dealt with?

Andrew Lansley: Identifying cost pressures and risks is, of course, a necessary part of the process of managing those risks, but I am afraid that the claim by the outgoing primary care trust that the risks cannot be managed by the incoming clinical commissioning groups is contrary to the experience of everybody in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, as he must know from the experience of the primary care trusts in North Yorkshire. The primary care trusts of the past did not cope, and it is up to the new clinical leadership in
	Yorkshire to make these things happen more effectively. The PCT did not finish last year in deficit; only three in the whole of England did—Barnet, Enfield and Haringey. I will make sure—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	If he listens to my answer, he will hear that we, along with the NHS Commissioning Board, intend all the new clinical commissioning groups across England to start on 1 April 2013 with clean balance sheets and without legacy debt from primary care trusts. That will give them the best possible chance of delivering the best possible care. On bariatric surgery, he must know that the NICE guidance recommends that it should be available to those with a BMI index of over 40, depending on their clinical circumstances.

Hugh Bayley: So why is it 50—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not keep shouting out. He has asked his question and had the answer. We will now move on.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lasting achievements of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will be the integration of health and social care, which will be excellent news for people recovering from strokes or meningitis?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party completely ignores the fact that one of the central points is that the creation of health and wellbeing boards—I pay credit to my Liberal Democrat friends in the coalition for that—the involvement of democratic accountability and the opportunity to create joint strategies that integrate public health, social care and the NHS and impact additionally on the wider and social determinants of health will be absolutely instrumental in the improvement of services and health in future.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Secretary of State confirm that shortly after taking office he downgraded the standard that the NHS should see A and E patients within four hours from 98% to 95% and that many A and E units are now failing to meet even that relaxed target? Does he believe that that was the right move, and does he have any other plans to change it again?

Andrew Lansley: I did indeed reduce the standard to 95%, on clinical advice, and currently the NHS is achieving 96.5%.

Nigel Mills: On a recent visit to observe the excellent work of my local ambulance station in Alfreton, I was shown the widely different times it takes certain hospitals to admit patients arriving by ambulance, which leads to ambulances being off the road for longer than they need to be. Is there anything the Secretary of State can do to strengthen the guidance on how hospitals should handle this process to avoid the problem?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Part of the measurement of the performance of ambulance trusts, together with their hospitals, is to record the number of occasions when ambulances wait more than 15 minutes before discharging their patients into the service. The Minister of State, my right hon.
	Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is very concerned and pursues precisely those issues, so I will ask him to look into the matter further and respond to my hon. Friend.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State told us earlier that every ambulance trust was meeting core response times, but I have to tell him that that is not the experience of my constituents, including Mrs Taylor, who had to wait 90 minutes after falling down stairs. Is not the truth that this is the result of reorganisation and the resulting cuts are making it impossible for ambulance trusts up and down the country to hit the times he says they are hitting, because they are not actually doing it?

Andrew Lansley: No, and I do not think that the staff of ambulance trusts will appreciate the hon. Gentleman generalising from the particular. I have not said that ambulance trusts reach every case in the time we intend, but the figures show that all ambulance trusts across England have met the category A target for responding consistently at a level they have not previously achieved.

Andrew Bridgen: I welcome the reforms and improvement to the NHS that the Secretary of State is delivering. However, the NHS paid out £1.3 billion in compensation claims last year, a rise of almost 50% on the year before. A spokesman has said that that is partly due to aggressive marketing by no-win, no-fee lawyers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current level of compensation claims in this country, in both the public and private sectors, is completely unsustainable and that it is now time to curtail the out-of-control compensation culture?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. From our point of view, the legislation that passed through this House in the last Session, led by my the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will be important and will help us in relation to some of these matters, not least on the use of no-win, no-fee arrangements. From time to time it has been deeply frustrating for us all to see that, of the money paid out by the NHS as a result of negligence claims, sometimes more is paid in fees, not least to lawyers, than is provided in compensation to those who have suffered harm. In the NHS we recognise the need to provide compensation when harm has occurred. It is extremely costly. The costs have risen and we want to minimise them. Reducing harm in the NHS will be important, but ensuring that we respond to complaints and offer redress more openly will also help us to manage the extent to which people resort expensively to the courts.

Chris Ruane: Of the 150 lines in the Secretary of State’s statement, only six referred specifically to mental health, despite the fact that between 1991 and 2011 the number of antidepressant prescriptions increased from 9 million to 46 million, a 500% increase. In 2004 NICE recommended mindfulness, a non-drug self-help therapy with no side effects, as better, more efficient and less costly than drug therapy, but it has not been taken up. I am not blaming him, but will we have an inquiry into the reasons for the massive increase in the prescription of antidepressants and the reason why mindfulness has not been taken up?

Andrew Lansley: I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the purpose of reports across the NHS is not to isolate individual conditions and to report on all of them, because if we attempted to do so the resulting document would be not the size of the one before me, but 10 times that. The object is to improve outcomes across the board.
	Let me make two points. First, one thing that the NHS did achieve last year involved 528,000 people having access to talking—psychological—therapies, and that in itself should substantially reduce dependence on medication for depression. Secondly, and I think importantly, of the 22 overall objectives established in the NHS Commissioning Board’s draft mandate, the ninth is about making mental health as important as physical health—creating a parity of esteem between the two. The measure is in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it is being carried through into the objectives of the NHS Commissioning Board and it will, in itself, be important when carried through into practice.

Bob Blackman: I warmly welcome the improvements in screening, diagnostics and treatment for those suffering from cancer, but patient outcomes are wildly different. For some, 10% of treatment will be successful, for others, 85% will be, and this means that we need more research to highlight which drugs and treatments should be introduced. May I make a bid for part of the surplus to be directed to the expensive equipment that is required to make such research happen, so that treatment and outcomes can be improved?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and one announcement I was happily able to make earlier this year was in response to the report by Professor Sir John Bell and his colleagues, whereby we will now put resources behind the establishment of genetic testing centres throughout the NHS, the purpose of which will be not least to enable us to undertake what is known as stratified medicine. This means that, by identifying when medicines have particular benefits for patients with certain genetic characteristics or phenotypes, we will be able to target such treatments, as we will be much more certain of their effectiveness and be able to reduce, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the many cases in which medicines are prescribed but turn out not to be effective in that patient’s circumstances.

John Woodcock: If the Secretary of State really believes that people will accept Ministers standing back from the consequences of their decisions, will he hear from families in my constituency, who are going to be devastated if, after all the turmoil—of which he is well aware—and after the forthcoming review, they are forced to travel for an hour and for 50 miles to receive consultant-led maternity services?

Andrew Lansley: I do not construe what we are doing as Ministers stepping back from the consequences of our decisions. The Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for the comprehensive health service, and I fully expect, in the same way as I am making a statement today on the first annual report, that I and my successors will make statements in years to come on annual reports and be held to account for the performance of the service.
	The point is that delivering the best possible care is not achieved by Ministers interfering on a day-to-day basis in how the NHS goes about its task. We have been very clear, through today’s mandate, about what we are looking for the NHS to achieve: consistently improving outcomes. We are not trying to tell the NHS to do so.
	Any particular service change, such as the one the hon. Gentleman describes, has to meet four tests: being of clear clinical benefit; responding to the needs and wishes of local service commissioners; responding to strong patient and public engagement; and maintaining and protecting patient choice. If there are any questions and objections, stating that such a service change does not achieve those aims, his local authority has the right under legislation to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for its reconsideration, so I am not taking the Secretary of State out of the process completely.
	The safe and sustainable review was set up independently by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, and it has been conducted completely independently, but, in the same way as I have just described, if local authorities have grounds for objections, they have also a mechanism, if they wish to use it, for referral.

Guto Bebb: I applaud my right hon. Friend on his statement today and on the publication of the annual report, from which I note that 12,500 patients in England have been able to access specialist cancer treatment as a result of the cancer drugs fund. The corresponding figure in Wales is zero, because the Labour Government in Cardiff refuse to put in place a similar scheme in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cancer patients in Wales deserve access to the same treatment as cancer patients in England?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I could not agree more. It was precisely because Professor Sir Mike Richards undertook an inquiry and produced a report identifying a lack of access in this country to new cancer medicines in the first year after their introduction that we instituted the cancer drugs fund. It is a matter of considerable regret to many of us that that example was not followed in a similar way in Wales.

Andy Slaughter: What message does the Secretary of State have for the 2 million people in west London, four of whose nine major hospitals are set to lose their A and E departments, including both, Hammersmith and Charing Cross, in my constituency? That is the Secretary of State’s policy. He cannot pass the buck to the NHS on this or, indeed, on the threat to the Royal Brompton hospital’s children’s services; he has to answer for it.

Andrew Lansley: No. Let me reiterate to the hon. Gentleman the point I have just made, because what he describes is not my policy. If there are proposals, they are proposals that have been generated in north-west and west London, and the safe and sustainable review is an independent review. It is not establishing the Government’s policy; it is an independent review in the NHS, looking at how services can be improved.
	The review was not in any sense about costs; it was entirely about how we sustain the highest quality of excellent care for patients. The same will be—needs to
	be—true in relation to services in west London for emergency care, and I will not go through this all again, but I reiterate that, if people object and say that such an aim will not be achieved, it is open to a local authority to refer the matter to a mere Secretary of State on the basis that the tests I have set down have not been met.

Simon Hughes: I welcome the encouraging and successful results of the work of our NHS staff in delivering the outcomes that the Secretary of State has reported in this first annual report. A vox pop in one of our local papers last month showed that everybody bar one thought that the NHS was doing a good job. The only complaint was that one person had to wait a little too long to be seen by their GP.
	One thing that would encourage people also is to know that, if there ever are proposals to discontinue NHS services or to transfer them from NHS management to private or voluntary sector management, they will always be subject to consultation and proceed only with the consent of the public.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Let me just separate those two parts. First, when there are changes in a service, such as when there is a proposal to change the provider of community services from, for example, an NHS-owned provider to an independent sector provider, they will be a subject for local consultation.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when there is any proposal not to provide a service, the Secretary of State is responsible under legislation for the provision of a comprehensive health service. It is not open, as I have made clear to the right hon. Member for Leigh, to the NHS to discontinue the provision of NHS services. It has to—[ Interruption. ] He says from a sedentary position, “It is doing so,” but he is completely wrong. I wrote to him this morning.
	We have stopped precisely the things that he said used to happen under the Labour Government, and it is precisely the case that trusts and future commissioners will have to maintain a comprehensive health service. They can apply clinical criteria and judge certain treatments to be of relatively poor value, but they must always maintain a service and show how they are responding to the clinical needs of their patients.

Peter Bone: Ever since I was elected to Parliament, I have campaigned for an urgent care centre in a hospital in my constituency. Labour took NHS provision out of my constituency, but with the new Nene Valley clinical commissioning group we are going for the first time to have that urgent care centre. So I should welcome the Secretary of State to Wellingborough, but I must warn him that he would be carried shoulder-high through its streets—with people cheering him.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot resist the enticement of such an invitation from my hon. Friend. It will reiterate what I found a year or so ago when I visited the nascent Nene Valley commissioning organisation. People there are really taking hold of things and showing how they can improve services in Northamptonshire.

Tessa Munt: Over the past year, the Department of Health has made statements about the fact that radiotherapy is eight times more effective than drugs. It is said that the cancer drugs fund is £100 million underspent and the figures of £150 million and £750 million have been mentioned in connection with new radiotherapy and radiosurgery services. Will the Secretary of State consider transferring at least that underspent funding into radiotherapy and radiosurgery services so that new services in the south-west do not depend on charitable funding?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The issue is important. In the cancer outcomes strategy, we responded positively to the recommendations of the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group. There was a £400 million programme for the support of radiotherapy; more recently, I have added to that a commitment to build two new centres for proton beam therapy. From about 2015, patients requiring such therapy will not have to go abroad to access it.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the early part of this year, we made additional resources available to the NHS supply chain so that more radiotherapy machines could be readily available for purchase or lease through the NHS without costs being incurred over the same period. I will look at what my hon. Friend has said. I think that in the cancer outcomes strategy we have set out all the investment in radiotherapy that we think is clinically indicated, but I will continue to review it.

Point of Order

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I let my indignation get the better of me.
	I have a point of order that I hope you will consider, Mr Speaker. I went twice to the Vote Office this morning to see whether I could get a copy of the NHS annual report so that I could read it before we heard the statement. I was told that it would not be available. Could we change our procedures so that when a Minister is presenting a document to the House, the document itself is circulated around the Chamber as well the statement? Even better, the document could be put in the Vote Office under strict embargo, say, an hour beforehand. Could that be considered?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Of course, what he has mentioned is not a matter of current practice and the fact that it is not is what the hon. Gentleman judges to be unsatisfactory, and he seeks a change. It seems a perfectly reasonable subject for consideration by the Procedure Committee, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will require much further encouragement to take the matter up with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Nick Brown: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 to limit the display of external advertisements concerning lettings; and for connected purposes.
	My Bill is designed to deal with the overuse of estate agents’ “To Let” signs. It has supporters from each of the three main parties. Following the last constituency boundary changes, I represent, for the first time, the mixed residential area of Jesmond in Newcastle upon Tyne. As well as being home to long-term residents, the area has a large population of students and young graduate professionals. The attractiveness of the area is spoilt by a plethora of “To Let” estate agent signs—signs that seem to me to be permanent display items, regardless of whether the flat in question is actually to let or not.
	Whatever the justification for the signs in the past, there is not much of a case for them now. Students and young professionals do not use “To Let” signs to find vacant flats; they use the internet, the lettings columns of Newcastle’s The Journal and Evening Chronicle and estate agents’ offices, and students can use the services provided by the universities and student unions.
	The situation, of course, is not unique to Newcastle; the same problem occurs in a slightly different guise in seaside towns and other cities—and for the same underlying reason, I suspect. It seems likely that the real reason the estate agent signs proliferate and stay up much longer than for their stated purpose is that they serve as a form of advertisement for the estate agent. In a competitive market, each agent feels the need to have signs to advertise their presence, because rival estate agents have them.
	My Bill has four clauses. The first disapplies schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 in so far as it applies to “To Let” signs. It deletes the phrase “or letting” from the Act. Thus “For Sale” signs would remain, while lettings signs would not.
	Clause 2 enables local authorities to make byelaws regulating “To Let” signs for all or part of the local authority area. That seems to be in keeping with the Government’s desire to shift responsibility for purely local matters to local government.
	It would therefore be possible for different rules to apply in different parts of the country according to the wishes of local people, as expressed through their local representatives. Local authorities enjoy day-to-day responsibility for housing policy, as well as local planning issues, so that seems a proportionate and appropriate way of dealing with the issue.
	Clause 3 makes it clear that when local authorities have not made rules for “To Let” signs, the default is that the signs should be banned. Clause 4 is a penalties regime on conviction of committing the offence, on the appropriate county court scale, with rising penalties for repeat offenders. I accept that it is currently possible for local authorities to apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government for permission to take steps to deal with the problem. However, the present procedures are cumbersome and disproportionate. My proposal is a much neater and more clear cut way of dealing with the problem, and is rooted in our commitment to local democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Frank Dobson, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Ian Mearns, Miss Anne McIntosh, Catherine McKinnell, Mr George Mudie, Chi Onwurah, Sir Bob Russell, Mr Andrew Smith and Bob Stewart present the Bill.
	Mr Nicholas Brown accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 7 September 2012 and to be printed (Bill 56).

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2012-13
	 — 
	HOME OFFICE

UK Border Agency

[Relevant Documents: The Fifteenth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2010-12, on the work of the UK Border Agency (April-July 2011), HC 1497, and the Government response, Cm 8253, and the Twenty-First Report from the Committee, Session 2010-12, on the work of the UK Border Agency (August-December 2011), HC 1722, and the Government response, Session 2012-13, HC 378.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Home Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £5,223,694,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1919 of Session 2010-12,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £274,499,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £5,536,178,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Vara.)

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to open this important debate about not only the Home Office estimates but the Home Affairs Committee’s reports into the UK Border Agency. I am pleased to see the Minister and shadow Minister and so many right hon. and hon. Members who have direct experience of dealing with the UK Border Agency.
	I particularly welcome members of the Home Affairs Committee who are here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) have made enormous contributions to the reports that the Select Committee has published in the past few years. The main feature of our reports is that they have been unanimous. Another feature has been our hope that with a succession of very carefully worded but carefully thought out reports we will be able to improve the quality of the UK Border Agency.
	Right at the start, I want to make something clear. I have chaired the Home Affairs Committee for five years. We have produced our reports about the administration of the UKBA on a regular basis under the previous Government and the current Government, and we have been as critical in the former case as in the latter. There is no party political point in this; it is about trying to get the best possible service that can be provided to those who use the UKBA. We decided at the start of the Parliament to look regularly at how the UKBA operates, so every three months we revisit our report to see whether there has been any improvement in the system. We also decided to put up a number of key indicators by which we judge how the UKBA operates. It is not the usual kind of Select Committee
	report that has big and long recommendations; rather, we make specific suggestions that we want the UKBA to follow.
	As the estimates indicate, the UKBA’s budget for 2012-13 is £1 billion, and it has a staff of 12,835, while the UK Border Force’s budget is £509 million, and it has a staff of 7,333. A number of ongoing issues arose under the previous Labour Government, and I shall touch on some of those. The first issue is foreign national offenders. There are 3,900 foreign national criminals living in the community who are subject to deportation, 57 of whom are part of the famous 2006 cohort who are still unable to be traced. In 2006, 1,013 foreign prisoners were released without any attempt being made to deport them. Of those, 844 people’s cases have been concluded, 399 people have been deported, 445 have not been deported, 93 are still in the process of being deported, 19 are serving another sentence, and 57 are untraceable. That situation has been ongoing for the past six years or so, and we will continue to monitor it until every one of those foreign national criminals has been found.

Kate Hoey: Did my right hon. Friend’s Committee consider why, when someone is found guilty of a criminal offence in this country and sentenced to prison, we cannot find a way of sending them back to serve their sentence in the country that they came from, instead of having them serve it in our prisons so that we have problems years later in trying to send them back? My constituents are always asking me about this.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These options need to be considered, as they were under the previous Labour Government in respect of Nigeria. Last Thursday, I was in her constituency with members of the Select Committee and we went to Brixton prison, where the governor told us that a third of the prisoners were foreign nationals and that he could not remember a single occasion when such a prisoner was removed at the end of their sentence; they were either taken into the community or made to report to a detention centre.
	The Government need to be given credit for the fact that the average time taken to deport has been reduced from 131 days in 2008 to 74 days in 2011, but that is still far too long. There is still a lack of cohesion between the National Offender Management Service and the Home Office. UKBA staff are stationed at Brixton prison, but the problem is that the UKBA is not informed about cases involving foreign national criminals right at the beginning of the process, at the time of sentencing. We have recommended in successive reports that that should happen in order to shorten the period between the release of the prisoner and their being removed to his or her country.
	In all the years I have been in this House, the main issue that has dogged the border forces has been the continual delays and backlogs that have gone on under successive Governments. We only recently discovered as part of our inquiry that a number of new, almost virtual reality, filing systems exist at the UKBA. There is the controlled archive which dates back to 2006; I prefer to call it the TARDIS, because files go in there and seem never to come out. The controlled archive is the place where files are dumped in cases where the UKBA does not know where the people are.

Michael Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most significant reasons for the difficulty in returning people to their countries of origin is the fact that those countries, including some with which this nation has very good relations, often do not want them back and therefore obfuscate and create delay, making it much harder for us to deport them efficiently?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is a problem, but that does not mean that we do not have to try to make sure that such deportations happen, because that would be a huge saving to the taxpayer and help us to meet the targets that the Government clearly want us to reach.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend referred to the TARDIS, as he calls it, but there are other cases in which people who have not yet been deported are simply categorised as “unknown issues”, so we have the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. That is a bizarre way of dealing with people, is it not?

Keith Vaz: It is indeed. There seems to be a paralysis on the part of senior officials of the UKBA, who just create more of these archives and move the backlog into different areas without trying to solve the problem.
	The archive has now been reduced from 98,000 to 93,000, and from January to March 2012 it fell to 80,000. When Mr Whiteman, the chief executive of the UKBA, who has been brought in as a new broom to try to make sure that these matters are sorted out, last appeared before the Committee, he promised us that the archive will, in effect, be closed by 31 December 2012, and we will hold him to that promise. His predecessor, Lin Homer, who because of the fabulous work that she did at the UKBA has been promoted and is now one of the permanent secretaries at the Treasury, gave us a promise when she said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who had requested that the legacy cases be concluded by the end of last summer, that every single legacy case would be concluded by the end of last year. [Interruption.]As can be seen from the reaction of right hon. and hon. Members here today, that has not happened. The UKBA has probably just created another of the filing systems where it puts various files when it does not know what has happened to the people involved.

Nicola Blackwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key areas in which we need to hold the UKBA to account is data management? It is almost impossible to understand what is going on and who is going where if we do not have clarity and transparency about the numbers.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes that point every time the head of the UKBA appears before us; I do not know whether she is an expert on data management. It is a big problem because, in the end, the immigration debate is about statistics. If the statistics are not right and we are unable to get the proper data, we cannot have an effective debate about what is happening.

David Ward: To go back to the controlled archive and the removal of old cases, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that new cases are still being added to it? It is very much like filling up a Jaguar car with petrol while leaving the engine on, so more petrol is needed at the pump.

Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his case load, it is a continuing process. He will hear about more of these cases on Friday when he holds his surgery. The Select Committee is saying that the backlog must be cleared, not just put in a different part of the UKBA. It cannot just move the files from Croydon to Liverpool and expect the situation to be sorted out. It must clear the backlog once and for all. With the willingness to do so and the £1 billion of resources that are available each year, that should be possible.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Richard Fuller: rose —

Keith Vaz: I will give way twice more, but then I must make progress because other Members want to speak.

Fiona Mactaggart: I concur with what my right hon. Friend has said about clearing the backlog once and for all. One of my concerns is that, in the present exercise of dealing with legacy cases and the backlog, instead of making a final decision on cases—people used to be given indefinite leave to remain or were returned—lots of people are being given three years’ discretionary leave, which means that a new backlog is being created for three years’ time.

Keith Vaz: No one in this House knows more about these issues than my hon. Friend, having been the chair of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. She is right that decisions are being put off.

Richard Fuller: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that immigration is an issue of statistics. It may not be popular to say so, but does he agree that it is also an issue about the lives of individual people? In managing the statistics, we should not lose sight—no matter what the tabloids say—of the fact that we are talking about people who may have made a commitment to come here and who may have gone through extremely difficult circumstances to get here. How we treat such people should have just as much emphasis in our consideration as dealing with the statistics.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Yarl’s Wood is near his constituency, so he will have dealt with these kinds of cases. It is important that we look at the cases on an individual basis. Of course they form part of a grid, table or pie chart, but they involve individual people with real problems that we need to deal with.
	I will move on to students, which is an issue of great interest to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. The Select Committee happens to contain not only the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), so obviously student visas are an important issue to it. Of course, the fine universities of Northampton, Leicester, De Montfort and Rhondda
	are also represented in the Chamber.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	If there is not a university of Rhondda, I am sure that there will be by the end of the week.
	We love seeing the Minister for Immigration before the Committee, although we do not see him often enough. He is coming before us on Tuesday. When he last came before us, we talked about student visas. There is definitely a difference of emphasis between the Foreign Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Home Office. The Home Office feels that it is very important to reduce the number of students, and to reduce the intake only to the brightest and the best—whatever that means.
	We all want to get rid of bogus colleges. That is why the Committee has pressed the UKBA to ensure that more of its visits are unannounced. The majority of its visits to colleges are still announced. People can therefore prepare for its arrival. We believe that it is important, as we have said in successive reports, that it just turns up on a Monday morning, a Friday afternoon or a Wednesday morning to see whether the college is operating. It is quite easy to do that. The UKBA does it for enforcement purposes. I have many examples of that. Indeed, the Home Secretary has given the example of a restaurant in her constituency, which she visited regularly and liked, being raided by the UKBA. It found that some of the workers were here illegally. If it is all right to raid restaurants, it should be all right to go into colleges to see whether they are bogus.
	We and the university sector want as many genuine students to come here as possible, because if they do not come here, they will go to the United States of America. There is even evidence that France is setting up courses in English to attract people who do not want to apply to come to the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that we deal with student numbers.

John McDonnell: There are genuine students who apply to and are accepted by a college on the UKBA’s approved list only for the college to be delisted. Those students are given no opportunity to find an alternative course and are left high and dry. They, too, are victims of this system.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. I have many examples of people who have come to my constituency only for the colleges to be closed down. That has happened to one or two colleges in Leicester. Where do those people go in the meantime? The colleges are bogus, but the students are not. They have paid their money in good faith. They are then in limbo if they do not have a different educational establishment to go to.

Nicola Blackwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I will give way as we are talking about education and it is the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon who wishes to intervene.

Nicola Blackwood: As always, the right hon. Gentleman’s generosity is extraordinary. Does he agree that it is vital to get the message right on student visas? It must be clear that, although we are clamping down on illegal student immigration, we are still open to genuine student immigration, because it is vital to our higher education
	sector. We still need the brightest and best students to come to our fantastic universities, such as Oxford university and Oxford Brookes university.

Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Lady, but that is true not only of the elite, which includes Oxford and Oxford Brookes universities, but of all the other language schools and higher education colleges that provide such a wonderful service.
	I will turn to family migration, which I know the Minister for Immigration will be asked about when he comes before the Select Committee on Tuesday. The new migration changes will come into effect on Monday. That, in my view, will be a disaster for the settled British Asian community. We are dealing not with people who come here illegally, but with the settled community, which the Prime Minister rightly praised recently at a big meeting of the Conservative Friends of India. Some 1,000 members of the diaspora turned up and listened to the Prime Minister’s speech. They liked what he said, but they will not like what the Minister and the Home Office are going to do on family visitor visas.
	Last week, I was presented with a case involving a wedding that will take place in Leicester in three weeks’ time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and I will go along, as we do with every wedding in Leicester. Two sisters of the bride had applied to come over from Toronto. One sister had been allowed to come, but the other had been refused. I wrote a letter, because there was no time for an appeal. The appeals system is so awful and takes so long, as the Minister keeps telling us and the UKBA, that there was no point in appealing, because the appeal would have come up next year, well after the wedding. I therefore wrote to ask for a review. I wrote to my account manager, Saleah Ahmed, who is very efficient. He is a post box—he does not make the decisions, but sent my letter to New York, which is the hub for north America. The letter that I got back said, “Sorry, the second sister’s case cannot be looked at because we only look at cases where there is a death or serious injury.” The first sister will be able to get into the country for the wedding, but the second sister will not be allowed in, despite the additional evidence that I have sent in, which will not even be considered. If the bridegroom or the bride died, the decision might be reconsidered, but otherwise, the second sister will not be allowed into the country and will miss her sister’s wedding.
	That situation will be repeated thousands and thousands of times when the right of appeal is removed and there is no effective system to deal with such problems. We have asked the Minister for meeting. I hope that he will meet Members from all parts of the House who have an interest in this matter. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), members of whose community I have met, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who must have a huge immigration case load, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—I could go round the whole Chamber—will not like a system which means that they can no longer tell their constituents that there is a right of appeal. They will not like a system in which there is no review or in which the review will take longer than the period that is left before such a wedding. We will be inundated with cases and the system will collapse.
	When I and other members of the Home Affairs Committee went to meet Jonathan Sedgwick, who heads the international section of the UKBA, he did not have a plan, because there was no ministerial plan in place. It is very important that we get such a plan in place before the changes take place. I do not like those changes, of course, but I will look at the plan that is on offer.

David Winnick: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that the last Conservative Government abolished the right of appeal. As he said, when constituents who are sponsors write to us, we then write to the UKBA or the Minister and receive the predictable reply that the case was examined by the appropriate official, who took into consideration all the details and came to a decision. Writing to the Minister or the UKBA will get us no response other than one reaffirming the refusal. That is a denial of justice and means that the entry clearance officer is judge and jury, which is totally wrong and inappropriate. I hope the Minister will reconsider it.

Keith Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, although I have not made them with quite the same passion and eloquence. This issue will simply not go away.
	I hope that we will also consider the quality of refusal notices. I pay tribute to John Vine, who is doing a superb job as the independent inspector. He came before the Home Affairs Committee a few years ago, just after he was appointed, and I was worried that he would not be able to do a good job, but he has done a superb job. He makes the point that the process starts with the refusal notice. If that is not clear, we cannot make progress.
	I do not know whether the Minister or other Members had the chance to see the Prime Minister’s appearance before the Liaison Committee yesterday. In his answer to my question about the UKBA, he was very clear that he did not believe bonuses should be paid if the job was not being done. The £3.5 million given to senior officials of the UKBA last year, in defiance of the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendation and the views of the Prime Minister and senior Ministers, who have no control over those bonuses, was wrong. Some 25% of the senior officials at the UKBA got a bonus of up to £7,000 each last year.
	The Minister knows the problems of the UKBA. He knows about the queues at Heathrow airport and is well aware of what happened with the Brodie Clark saga. It is not an organisation whose senior officials are worthy of being given bonuses. When they do a good job, as Mr Whiteman has promised to do in the end, we can consider bonuses, but certainly not at the moment.
	I hope that the Minister will assure us that the 7,000 people in the Border Force will be enough to deal with the inflow of the 5 million to 11 million people who it is estimated will come to the UK in the three-week period of the Olympics. I hope that the number of people that he promised would be at the airports to check people getting in will be forthcoming.
	The Home Affairs Committee does not divide on its reports if it can help it, although on points of great principle my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall
	North (Mr Winnick) does his best to encourage us to be much more challenging—I was going to say divisive—in how we present our reports. We will continue to monitor the UKBA every three months, and we will continue to give it key indicators, of which there are 47 at the moment.
	The one thing that really irritates the Committee is the fact that the UKBA delays in sending us information. I put that point to the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee yesterday. That was a problem under the Labour Government and, I am sorry to say, there is still a problem under the current Government. We are dealing by and large with the same officials—Ministers have changed, but the officials and the culture remain the same. When we write to the UKBA and ask for information, we want a reply by a deadline, because when it writes to our constituents it expects a reply by a deadline. We want to ensure that the data that we ask for are put forward and that our requests are not left on a Minister’s desk waiting to be replied to. We shall continue to hold the organisation to account in a rigorous and robust way, and we hope that that will be of benefit to Members.

David Ward: I start by being somewhat self-indulgent and paying tribute to my office staff. As Members may imagine, they have an enormous burden of immigration work in a Bradford constituency. I also pay tribute to the Home Affairs Committee, which has raised many of the relevant issues so well that I can speak for a much shorter time than I normally would on such an important topic for my constituency.
	I also pay tribute to the staff of the UKBA, because although at times there appear to be systemically dysfunctional areas in the service, that should not lead to criticism of the individual officers with whom we work. In particular, I pay tribute to the account managers. Our own, Chris Taylor, has been excellent. I believe that structural changes to the service are planned, and I urge the Minister to retain the local connection. If that were taken away, it would be greatly to the detriment of the service that is provided. Is it intended to keep that local connection, which is so important to us?

Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important to get a good relationship between the person at the UKBA and the constituency office team? The UKBA does a far better job when it is willing to listen to MPs and their staff and respond positively. If it puts us at arm’s length and tries to run away from us, it delivers far less good a service.

David Ward: Absolutely. We often systematise things to try to improve them when they are really about personal relationships. We need to build close understandings and partnerships, which in our case have been to the benefit of clients with whom we have dealt.
	We were told that the UKBA’s legacy of cases would be cleared, with the vast majority being fully concluded. As we now know, that meant the transferring of a big chunk of legacy cases into the controlled archive. Rightly or wrongly, the impression was given that the archive was a dumping ground and that the files were being
	transferred because the UKBA had given up on those cases. Dozens of people have walked into my constituency office and we have been able to find no trace of their case, because it has already been put in the controlled archive. It is then difficult to get it out again. I am sorry if this seems unfair, but it seems like our office is doing the work that the UKBA should have done, at the cost of the time that it takes away from other matters.
	Will the Minister confirm or deny that cases are still being added to the controlled archive? My understanding is that if people do not turn up to report to the UKBA three times, their cases are transferred to the archive. If that is not true, a clear message needs to be put out to that effect, because that is what we are told.
	Another issue that has cropped up regularly is cases being transferred into the controlled archive in error. That is not so bad if they are then retrieved and dealt with properly, but the evidence suggests that such cases go to the back of the queue when they are retrieved. That is patently unfair on people whose cases should never have been transferred in the first place. I understand that work is now taking place, with credit agencies and other means being utilised to deal with cases in the controlled archive. As I said, however, it is difficult to understand why those cases ever went there in the first place, given that other methods and techniques were available to deal with them first time around.
	My final point concerns intelligence. I understand that my constituency office—one single office—accounts for 70% of the intelligence provided in the whole of the west-Yorkshire region, which indicates the number of cases we deal with and the confidence people have that they will be dealt with by my office. When I was a councillor, we were encouraged to dob in the dealers, and local residents would bring cases to us to take to the police. Those people did not hand in that information with disinterest, but wanted to know what would happen; they wanted feedback and to know whether the people dealing drugs in the phone box on the opposite side of the road had been dealt with.
	We all think it important that residents support the police, but constituents want to know that something is actually happening. Yet that intelligence appears to disappear without them ever knowing what has happened, which is patently unfair, not only on my office, through which the information goes, but on the people who have provided it. Feedback is important because the people who provide the intelligence often do so at risk to themselves: they might be acting extremely bravely—they might be family members in marriages, some of them sham marriages—and under threat for having provided that evidence. Feedback, then, is not only good practice but humane. They need to know what happens to these people. Especially when there is a slow response in terms of removal, they have a right to know what is happening, because their personal safety might be at risk.

David Winnick: The Liberal Democrats have always supported the appeals system—as I recollect, they took the same view as us at the time of the previous Tory Government. Given that they are now part of the coalition and we know that the appeals system for visitors is being abolished, where does the hon. Gentleman stand?

David Ward: The hon. Gentleman states our position correctly. I support the appeals system. There would be no dispute between us there.
	The Government’s response states that the number of complaints is due to their being difficult cases.

David Winnick: I hope I am not being discourteous, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene a second time. If that is the position of the Liberal Democrats, what pressure are they putting on their coalition partner? Why are they not saying, “We won’t go along with this”?

David Ward: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would rather make my speech than the one he probably wants to make. If he makes that speech, I shall intervene and support him, but I would like to finish mine first.
	We are told that the number of complaints is a direct result of the complexity of the cases and their impact on individuals. Yes, that is the case to some degree, but the truth is also that the complaints arise from sheer mismanagement—lost files, poor administration and so on. That would not be so bad if the services provided value for money, but they are hugely expensive—as much as £1,000—which means that people rightly demand, and are entitled to, a good service. Given that the appeals process can cost another £120, which they do not get back if they are successful, they have a right to a first-rate system, yet that is clearly not being delivered. Will the Minister indicate what is being done to improve the level of service? I believe that the website talks about a six-month turnaround time. Nobody believes that. They are lucky if it is eight months. So there is this question of value for money.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman says that nobody believes the turnaround time, but the problem is that many applicants do believe it, and then they come to people such as us and say, “Why am I being picked on?” I say, “You’re not being picked on. It’s like this for everyone”, and they do not believe us. It is time that the Home Office was at least honest about how long it takes.

David Ward: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In fact, everyone is being picked on, so in that sense it is fair really. But that is the claim on the website, and it simply is not being delivered. We need a sense of realism. Not only are these services very expensive, but on the delivery side there is a huge let-down, which makes it even worse when people come into our offices. So I would like the Minister to respond to those issues: value for money, intelligence and the issue of account managers and retaining that local connection.

Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) not only on the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which he chairs, but on what he said today, particularly how he ended his speech—on the abolition of appeal rights for visitors who are turned down.
	If only because of the effluxion of time, as Winston Churchill called it, I have undoubtedly dealt with more immigration cases than any other Member ever has. At
	present, I have 71 cases on my “active” files, and as some are completed—occasionally positively but sometimes ending in despair—new ones flow in. When I hold my constituency advice bureaux, as I have done on the past two Saturdays, a preponderance of the cases I receive are immigration cases, and a substantial proportion of those who come to me are constituents of Pakistani or Bengali origin—although they do not all come from there; others are of African origin and so on. However, when I read in the newspapers, as I have done in the past few days, about a survey showing that people of Pakistani origin feel more British than anybody else in the country, I wonder how long it will last, given that the immigration service treats them as heartlessly, ineffectively, ineffectually and inefficiently as it does today.
	I have dealt with Home Secretaries ever since I entered the House in 1970, but I do not deal with this Home Secretary because she is so arrogant that, unlike any other Home Secretary with whom I have corresponded, she will not touch an individual immigration case. For example, Douglas Hurd, among many other Tory Home Secretaries with whom I have had dealings, would not only deal with cases himself but, if I asked to see him about a case, which I rarely did, would immediately agree to see me. On one occasion, a man under a deportation notice said to me, “Let me see the Home Secretary so that he can tell me to my face why he is deporting me.” Douglas Hurd saw him, considered the case and reversed the decision, and that man is now living happily in Manchester with his family, who are now considerably grown-up. That was what Tory Home Secretaries such as Douglas Hurd, William Whitelaw, even Leon Brittan, were like. This Home Secretary believes she is too important to do what Douglas Hurd, Willie Whitelaw, Leon Brittan—and David Waddington and others—did.

Keith Vaz: In fact, given the abolition of the right of appeal, Members will want to go to Ministers much more often—that will delay Ministers and take up an enormous amount of their time—because there is nowhere else for them to go. They will be unable to go to the appeals system; they will have to go to Ministers.

Gerald Kaufman: I accept that completely, but if my right hon. Friend will forgive me for apparently being patronising, he should not hope for too much from that process—in so far as it is a process.
	It is not simply that the policy is a hard, harsh policy; individual cases are dealt with with a level of incompetence that would not be tolerated in pretty well any other area of activity. For example, last week the Minister for Immigration sent me a telephone number for a constituent to use when his DNA test had been completed—and it was completed successfully, I might say. The telephone number was wrong. That came from the Minister’s office, and with his signature. The Minister sometimes wonders why I insist on having my cases dealt with by a Minister. The answer is that the UK Border Agency is an agency, and a Minister’s signature on a letter is what a Member of Parliament has the right to have. We have only two rights: freedom of speech, within procedure, in this House; and access to Ministers. If we do not have those, we might as well not be here.
	Let me give the House just a few examples of the botching that has gone on in cases I have dealt with. On 17 May, the Minister for Immigration wrote to me about a particular person, saying that a decision will be made on his application within the next four weeks. He came to me on Saturday, six weeks after that promise was made—no decision. Another constituent was told in a letter from the Minister that her application would be concluded within three months, yet it was not. What on earth is the point of him giving these specific commitments if they are to be broken?
	Here is another one. The Minister wrote to me on 12 December 2011, saying that the case in question would be decided by the end of that month. By my calculation, we are into July 2012: no decision on that, after a promise by the Minister.

Richard Fuller: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recounting stories that I think a number of us hear in our constituency surgeries. I am a new Member, having joined the House in 2010, but does he, like me, scratch his head at the number of constituents who have come to this country and have been waiting for many years for their cases to be resolved? What would he say, on reflection, about the attitude of the last Government in dealing with such cases as expeditiously as he is requesting this Government to do?

Gerald Kaufman: I would be the first to say that it was not good enough. I remember when Charles Clarke was appointed Home Secretary. I ran into him in the Members’ Lobby, from which my office is 40 seconds away. I said, “I want you to come up to my office.” He did, and I showed him my special immigration file. I said, “I cannot lift it out of the filing cabinet. I expect, under your Home Secretaryship, to be able to lift the file.” It was not as good as it should have been. There were Ministers in that Government, including Charles Clarke and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who were personally accessible if there was a problem I wanted to discuss with them.
	However, I have to tell the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that when I was gathering these cases to present to the House this afternoon, I had to use two files because my filing cabinet is now so full that I have to divide the cases into two, so that my secretary can lift one file or the other. I am not saying that it was paradise under the Labour Government by any means; what I am saying—I do not want to patronise the hon. Gentleman, but I do have the experience—is that things are far worse now.
	Let me give one more example of a constituent whom the Home Secretary wrote to me about.

David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Gerald Kaufman: I will always give way to my hon. Friend.

David Winnick: The Home Affairs Committee was critical of the Labour Government at the time, although the situation was not as bad as it is now. But of course it was the last Labour Government who brought back the right of appeal.

Gerald Kaufman: Of course it was, and they did so under pressure from a lot of us, including my hon. Friend and me. One of the problems, to which I will come in a moment, is that even now the right of appeal of itself may not necessarily provide a solution to the problem.

Seema Malhotra: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: If I may, I will give a further example, and then of course I will give way to my hon. Friend.
	A woman came to see me recently saying that she had been to the Border Agency office at Dallas Court, in Salford, and was told by a man called Ken that it was pointless for her to apply for indefinite leave to remain because she would be refused. She then asked him what she was supposed to do. He told her to go to her Member of Parliament. I wrote to the Home Secretary to ask what I was supposed to do, given that the Border Agency had told her that any application from her would be refused. I have yet to receive a reply to that letter, which I wrote on 21 May. I tabled a question about it and was told that a reply had been sent, but I have not received one. What on earth is a Member of Parliament supposed to do when a Border Agency official says that they have to solve their constituent’s problem? Let me make it clear: if I were allowed to solve these problems, I would happily do so, and life would be a great deal more tranquil for a lot of my constituents.

Seema Malhotra: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success rate of appeals against refusals of family visitor visas underlines concerns about the quality of initial decision making? For example, in 2010 almost 10% of family visit visas were issued after an appeal had been lodged. Any conversation about the removal of a right of appeal should be on the back of evidence that no decisions are being overturned.

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend is perfectly right; indeed, her intervention brings me to my next point, concerning visits.
	One of the things about my Muslim constituents in particular—but not only my Muslim constituents—is that they have a very strong sense of family. I get case after case of somebody wanting to come here as a wedding guest but is turned down; and even with the right of appeal, the appeal process would be far longer than the period until the date of the wedding.
	I raised one case in Prime Minister’s questions—the only question I have asked this Prime Minister—which involved a young woman in my constituency who wanted her 72-year-old grandmother to come to her wedding. Her grandmother was turned down, one of the reasons being that if she came here, she would try to get a job. Seventy-two years old; never left Pakistan in her life; cannot speak English; unemployment in my constituency at 10.7%—and this cunning old lady was going to twist her granddaughter’s wedding into an opportunity to get a job.

David Winnick: Perhaps by becoming an MP.

Gerald Kaufman: She would be welcome.
	I have of course had several wedding cases, like other hon. Members who have had similar experiences. I had a case the other day of a woman with a doctorate who wanted her mother to come from Pakistan for her graduation ceremony. I wrote to the Minister. When I really get the bit between my teeth, I do not simply write a letter and put it in the post; we actually use fax or e-mail—we have adopted these modern devices to try to get things speeded up. However, the mother of the lady concerned never got to her graduation ceremony. That is a lack in both their lives. What kind of human beings are they in the Border Agency that they do not take into account things of the heart and things of sentiment? That is what troubles me most about this issue. I also have a case of somebody who wants to come as a living kidney donor to a relative here. He has applied twice. The first time he was turned down—a living kidney donor!—and he has now applied again. I would be very interested to see what response I get this time.
	One of the consequences of the way in which immigration administration is making a misery of the lives of many of my constituents is that before they come to me, or simultaneously with coming to me, they go to solicitors. I want to say this here and now: we have in the city of Manchester some of the most predatory and greedy solicitors. It is an utter disgrace. They take up a case, do nothing about it and then send the constituent to me to see whether I can sort it out. I wish that something could be done to deal with these greedy thieves, who deal with people who do not have much money anyhow. We do not have affluence in my constituency; we have deprivation. That is why, in cases such as that which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East spoke about, involving somebody coming for a wedding being turned down, the advice is not to appeal—that would take month upon month—but to make a new application. That was what I was advised in the case of the young woman with the 72-year-old grandmother, but that would have cost them a lot of money. They do not have that money: they have already spent it once.
	I welcome the opportunity of today’s debate, because I feel so utterly frustrated on behalf of my constituents—good, decent people, who want to live family lives, but who are prevented from doing so—and by a Government who are so utterly incompetent. If the Home Secretary was so busy that a person like me was just too trivial for her to deal with, because she was pursuing other, valuable and useful policies, I might just accept that, egoist though I am. However, we have had information this week that, because of her cuts, Greater Manchester police force says that it will not be able to cope with riots, if there are any this summer—and there might well be: constituents were talking to me about their fear of this at the weekend. I feel very strongly indeed about many of the across-the-board policies that this Government pursue, but one that strikes right at the heart of good, decent, family people is their immigration policy and its administration. It is about time it was changed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am aware that we are due to start the next item at 4 o’clock. Owing to the numbers who wish to catch my eye, I suggest a limit of around eight minutes, which should enable us to get everybody in.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to listen to the contributions to this debate from both sides of the House and to make my own. I do so as someone who has been an immigrant most of his life—I left the country in 1986, before coming back to seek to represent the good people of Bedford and Kempston in 2004—and as a son of Bedford. Bedford is probably the most ethnically diverse, multicultural town in the country, and I am extraordinarily proud to be its representative. I also speak in this debate as a full supporter of this Government’s efforts to restore confidence in our immigration system.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, you rightly pointed out at the beginning of the debate that we would have the opportunity to debate not only the estimates, but the specifics of the Home Affairs Committee’s report. If I may, however, I would like to move in a slightly different direction and review the morality of the decisions we make about immigration, which have led to us spending £1 billion a year and involving 12,000 people in an apparatus to ensure that our borders are secure and that people’s confidence in immigration is restored. I say that because the situation we are now in is a consequence of the policies and actions taken over a long period, and it has grown over time. If one looks at the scale of the issue in terms of immigration control, at the longevity of its relevance and also, if I may say so, at the arrogant dismissal of the issue for so long, one can see the context in which we are evaluating the UK Border Agency, which is essentially a child of those circumstances and those facts.
	It is important for us to look at the reasons why concerns about immigration reached such a high level and why we are devoting such substantial resources to immigration control. Was it a matter of purpose or a matter of incompetence over a number of years, and who is to blame? Should we blame the bureaucrats and the agents, or should we blame the political masters? I do not wish to get into the commentary by Andrew Neather from a couple of years ago about the last Government’s deliberate policy to make the UK a multicultural society or the fact that they were not straight with the British people about that, but it strikes at our understanding of the context in which we will now ask for decisions to be made by this Home Secretary and this Minister for Immigration.
	My general feeling, being a new Member of Parliament, is this. How on earth did we get into this position, where so many of my constituents come to me with such heart-wrenching stories of how their lives have been eviscerated by this country’s utter incompetence, over a long period, in sorting out its immigration? It hurts me in my heart to have to look at people who have suffered torture, had to flee their own countries and had to live under the wire of suspicion having to deal with not being able to guarantee that they can make a living while the system works out what should happen with their lives. It pains me, as a member of our country, to think what that says about the United Kingdom.
	In the short time I have, let me take hon. Members through a couple of those points. The term “asylum seeker” used to be a badge of honour, but now we take it to be a token of shame to be bandied about in the tabloids and used as a reason for making excuses. The
	UK used to be seen as a beacon of liberty for asylum seekers. We are making changes in that regard, and I am not sure that all those changes are right.
	I welcome fast-track detention as a policy, but I say to the Minister that if we are going to take people through a process quickly, let us assume that each of them has a valid case. In the short period that they have, let us give them the best counsel, the best lawyers and the best psychiatric help, so that we can make that evaluation according to the highest standards that people expect from a free society such as the United Kingdom.

Nicola Blackwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to take into account the possibility that those who go through that process might have been the victims of torture, and that we should implement rule 35 effectively?

Richard Fuller: Absolutely. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about being aware of that. Some Members might have heard, at the meeting held to discuss a report on fast-track detention, about the refugee from Uganda who had had to stand in a queue in an open room and explain to an immigration officer how he had been raped, and why he was claiming asylum. We must bring to an end such unfair and ineffective processes if we are to restore our sense of decency.
	The policy has also led to the detention of the innocent. How did we manage to set up a policy that results in children being put into prison? What on earth were the previous Government thinking when they permitted that to happen? Why do we continue to keep pregnant women in detention? The Independent Monitoring Board’s report on Yarl’s Wood stated that it wanted the policy on the detention of pregnant women to be reviewed, and that, in the interim, detention should be the last resort. However, according to information that I have received from Yarl’s Wood Befrienders, there were cases of women who were 35 weeks pregnant being removed from Yarl’s Wood last month. I point this out to the Minister not because I am ashamed of what he is doing—I am proud of what he is doing to control immigration—but to illustrate how far we have allowed our morality to be debased by losing control over the system.
	Let me deal with detention without trial. This country is supposed to be the home of habeas corpus, yet to my simple way of thinking we seem to be ignoring that when dealing with people who come here for immigration purposes. Studies show that there are 52 people in our immigration detention centres who have been detained for more than a year, and 16 who have been detained for more than two years. I understand the process issues, and I am sympathetic to the Minister on those, but if I want to hold my country to the highest standards, I cannot be satisfied unless the practice of detention without trial is brought to a conclusion. Will the Minister consider introducing a maximum detention period for people being detained under the immigration rules?
	Will the Minister also ensure that the Home Office implements its own policies thoroughly? The Government have rightly said that they want to introduce a better process for people who have survived torture, who, according to the rules, are not deemed suitable for fast-tracking or detention. To avoid detention, however,
	such people are supposed to have their evidence to hand. The problem with that policy is that it is very hard for them to have that evidence to hand when they are assessed. It takes time to get it together. The pamphlet from Medical Justice, “The Second Torture”, gives 50 examples of people who have suffered torture but who have not been permitted to follow the appropriate process because the Home Office is not fulfilling its obligations.
	Many hon. Members have talked about individual constituency cases of people who have lived under these policies and been in hiding. A gentleman who came to my office had been here since 1996. He had sought an opportunity to stay in this country, and received it in 2011, but the delays meant that he had been unable to see his terminally ill grandfather. I also met two constituents who had fled Zimbabwe. It is not easy for anyone who flees from Zimbabwe to get their documents from that country, so of course their documents will be false. When the marks of torture and shackles are still clearly visible on their legs, however, that should be sufficient evidence in itself. I ask my Minister to sort out this mess on immigration, and to seek to reassert the highest principles of British justice, British fairness and British compassion.

Fiona Mactaggart: In addressing the subject of this debate, we must always remember that it involves families, and that is what I shall concentrate on today. Those families often pay huge fees. The £1,800 that it will cost a spouse to get settlement in this country is 10% of the income that the sponsor needs for the spouse to qualify. There is a lot of money involved, and those people have a right to a decent service. At the moment, however, they are not getting it.
	I readily admit that the problem is not new; it has not developed under this Government. Indeed, when I was first elected in 1997, I remember discovering the antecedent of the controlled archive. It was in a room in the bottom of a building in Croydon, where the air was so poisonous that staff could not go in. It contained a huge heap of files that had been amassed there, and nobody knew what they were. So this is a long-standing problem.
	We need to address the problems of inefficiency and the bad ways in which the system works, and I want to use the debate to make a series of specific requests of the Minister. Even though he and I do not agree on the entirety of the policy, I believe that he will be able to meet those requests. The first relates to dealing with legacy cases. At the moment, all the cases involving those who are to be granted indefinite or discretionary leave have to be checked by security and by the police national computer—and quite right, too. Unfortunately, when the UK Border Agency asks for the information, further checks have to be carried out, and photographs, vignettes and biometrics have to be obtained. That process often takes so long that the security clearance, which last only three months, has expired by the time it has been completed. I ask the Minister to instruct his staff to grant leave in such circumstances none the less. When the problem is the result of inefficiency in the system and involves further rounds of checks and further delays, let us not make his staff carry out those further checks and go through those further delays, using up time and capacity that they do not have.
	My second point is one that I am sure many hon. Members will be familiar with from their constituencies. It relates to cases in which a woman—it is usually, but not always, a woman—has been deceived by a partner and been abandoned the day after he is granted indefinite leave to remain. Under the previous Government, after a long struggle, I managed to persuade the then Minister that such women should get a proper response when they requested information on their husbands’ immigration status and on what the Home Office was going to do about their situation. I got an agreement on that, and for a very short time, Ministers would write not only to me to tell me what was happening with the case, but to the women who had complained. That has now stopped.
	I put it to the Minister that reinstating that practice would a much more effective means than the “dobbing-in” system on the Home Office website, because those women have specific information about their cheating spouses. He should give them the respect of a full response to their inquiries. He should also follow up those inquiries. In my view, it would be perfectly possible under the immigration rules to curtail the leave of husbands who had behaved in the way that I have described, on the grounds that their presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, particularly if—as is often the case—they had a record of being vicious and violent towards their spouses. I would be really grateful if the Minister made that commitment today. I think that my request is fairly straightforward, and reinstating that practice would go with the grain of what he has been saying about using intelligence.
	My next point is about the new immigration rules, which are due to come into force next week. I remember, when I was director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, getting a telephone call from a country solicitor who said, “I’ve got this person here and I’ve got the Immigration Act in front of me, and it refers to these things called the immigration rules. What are they?” I told him, and I felt rather scared that that person thought he was qualified to give immigration advice. Actually, he was being honest. He was trying to find out the best advice to give his client, but—as other hon. Members have pointed out—there are solicitors who are not in the least bit honest.
	Actually, even the honest solicitors are going to find these new immigration rules completely incomprehensible. There is no statement of changes in the immigration rules; they are not numbered; there are typographical and other errors in them. I do not agree with their content, but if I were the Minister, I would say, “We aren’t going to bring them into force until we have done them properly.” Frankly, they are not proper at present. I would like the Minister simply to say that he will not bring them into force until he has got rid of the errors. I pray against them and hope he will not introduce them, but from his own point of view, if he does not get them right, he will make much more work for his officials, who will be constantly subject to representations and appeals because of the confusion that arises. Speaking as someone who has dealt with these issues for some 30 years, I have to say in the context of today’s discussion about the administration of the UK Border Agency that if the Minister persists in implementing these rules at this point—irrespective of whether they are the right thing to do in the long term—he will create much more unnecessary work for his people.

John McDonnell: Like me, my hon. Friend has prayed against the rules. Today is not the time to debate them in any detail, but does she agree that the Government should now give us the opportunity to debate the rules thoroughly on the Floor of the House?

Fiona Mactaggart: I think it would be helpful to do so, but in a way that is not the point here. The point is that if the Minister accepts that there are errors in the draft—I know that they are errors and not deliberate—he should take the opportunity to withdraw the rules until they can be remedied, to ensure that the immigration system is properly administered. Given the problems of administration—the queues at Heathrow and other issues, and the problem with posts overseas where we have had good reports from the independent chief inspector responsible for entry clearance, highlighting that the wrong decisions have been made—perhaps the Minister could do something about them.
	One thing I have learned from my long involvement in these issues is that the biggest problem is trying to get the Home Office administration to do what it says on the tin—to do what the rules say to make sure that the administration is effective and efficient. It is not, and it has not been for decades. The simplest thing to do would be to try to drive out unnecessary processes and to use the people subject to immigration control as allies in making the system more efficient. The vast majority of people who are trying to join their families here or to visit Britain are trying to do the right thing. If we can work in a way whereby the people trying to do the right thing can help to make the system more efficient, we could envisage a system in which not everyone was subject to the degradation—frankly, it is degradation—that is a product of the gross inefficiency and bureaucracy of that system.
	I have made some specific proposals, and if the Minister were to say yes to them today, we could take a couple of little steps in that direction. Many more are needed.

Tom Brake: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few short points in the debate. My first is about the structural changes taking place within the UK Border Agency. Does the Minister have strong views about these proposals? In his view, will they make a significant contribution to making UKBA an organisation or agency that is fit for purpose? He will be aware of the specific changes to operational areas, with specific directors and cross-cutting directorates being established.
	The Select Committee on Home Affairs has played a central role in tracking developments at UKBA over recent years. I refer briefly to the 15th report published in November last year. That report rightly identifies initial decision making as central to much of what we are debating and covers appeals, which are clearly a two-way process. Yes, officials may well make wrong decisions, but it is equally clear from the information I have received that appeals are often successful because the information was not supplied correctly the first time round. The appeal was not based on a decision, but was one in which supplementary information led to a positive
	outcome. Making the right decision at the outset is key, as is ensuring that the right information is supplied by applicants.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), who is no longer in his place but will return shortly, highlighted the importance of intelligence, and I certainly support what he said. When people come to MPs with intelligence about the activities of individuals who they think are here illegitimately, feedback is essential so that constituents can see that some action has been taken as a result. I appreciate the difficulties associated with data protection when providing feedback that is specific to an individual case, but we need to ensure that feedback is provided in some shape or form.
	On correspondence between the MPs and the UKBA, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, my experience suggests that things have improved. They are not perfect, but there is no doubt about the improvement, and my staff would confirm that. I no longer experience the sort of thing that happened back in 1997, when many people I saw in my surgery had been in the UK for perhaps 10 years, yet their status had still not been determined. That is changing, which does not mean that things are perfect.
	What MPs do quite successfully is to use individual cases to identify areas with a pattern of poor performance. I will not reel off a long list of individual cases, but I shall refer to one case of a family—I shall call them Mr and Mrs J—who were granted visas on appeal in February last year in Colombo, but who have still not received them. I do not know whether a specific problem in Colombo has caused that to happen, but if such cases help to identify an issue in a particular mission, I hope that the Government would respond.

Fiona Mactaggart: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not just specific to Colombo? This pattern is common; I have a number of such cases in Islamabad, for example.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which shows that it is essential for us collectively to identify such problems; we might believe that these are individual cases, but when the feedback comes in from all MPs, we see that the issue is a much wider one.
	A number of Members have referred to data. Clearly, without strong data, it is difficult to determine whether policy is effective. I greatly welcome the fact that, following pressure from the Liberal Democrats on an issue that we have been running with for a number of years, exit checks will be reintroduced. Ultimately, that is the only way to secure high-quality data that can effectively inform debate.
	On the problem of backlogs, I am sure the Minister will have received the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which many of us, too, have received for today’s debate. The briefing refers to the definition of a review, and it challenges the UKBA statement that reviews have been carried out in respect of all asylum backlog cases. That might involve a definitional issue involving what constitutes a review. A paper review may involve no contact with either the legal representatives or the individual who is the subject of the review. In any event, the ILPA is concerned about whether every case has been reviewed.
	I do not know whether the Minister was quoted accurately when he was reported to have said:
	“The UK has been forced to launch a global charm offensive to convince foreign students it is not against immigration”.
	The quotation comes from a BBC report headed “Please come to UK”. The Minister is shaking his head, so it appears it that is not an accurate representation of what he said. Whether it is or not, however, I should like him to tell me whether the capacity exists to make what I accept is a difficult distinction between students who, having applied to attend a college here quite legitimately, find that between their application and their arrival the college has been shut down—for perfectly legitimate reasons—and has taken their money but will not give them what they wanted, and those who are not students but have colluded to come here for purposes other than study. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish such people from students who fall foul of the rules through no fault of their own.

David Winnick: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was going to mention this, but may I put to him the question that I put earlier to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward)? If he and his party believe that the appeals system is right for visitors, what input, if any, is the coalition receiving from his party on the issue?

Tom Brake: We have made written representations, but the hon. Gentleman may not have heard something that I said earlier. The most significant thing that the Government can do on behalf of everyone—the UKBA, the Government and, indeed, applicants—is ensure that the correct decisions are made the first time round.
	The ILPA has drawn Members’ attention to changes made in October 2010 to the policy on suitability for detention. It alleges that conditions have worsened considerably, especially for people with serious medical conditions. Has the Minister had any dialogue with the UKBA on the subject, and is he satisfied that the rules ensure that a person’s health can be taken into account?
	I shall not go into my final point in any great detail, because it has already been raised in the context of HC 194 “Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules”. Concern has been expressed not just about typographical errors, but about instances in which the understanding of the rules may have been different from what their intention now appears to be. The issue is too detailed for the Minister to respond now, but I hope that he will be able to clarify the Government’s position. I know that he has the relevant documentation.
	I think that the coalition Government have made progress, particularly, I am pleased to say, on the issue of child detention, which was mentioned earlier. However, I accept that they still have a considerable distance to go.

John McDonnell: Given that Heathrow is in my constituency, along with the two detention centres of Harmsworth and Colnbrook, dealing with these issues constitutes the daily work of my office, not just during the day but into the night and at weekends, because, like every other Member’s office, we are inundated at the moment. That was reflected in the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for
	Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
	The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) raised the issue of compliance with rule 35. I have met representatives of people whom I would describe as constituents, because they have been detained in my constituency, who have been victims of torture and whose circumstances have been affected deleteriously by their detention. That continues. Hunger strikes are currently taking place in detention centres. People who have come here to seek asylum as a result of torture and the loss of human rights have been denied it, have been locked up, and are now refusing food. Some are in a serious condition.
	The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned the detention of children. The independent monitoring board produced a report about Heathrow’s short-term holding facilities at the beginning of the year. I pay tribute to the volunteers on the board for their excellent work and the commitment that they demonstrate. The report made a range of recommendations. It said that the children’s short-term holding facilities were a disgrace. Children had to witness the detention and forced deportation of people—scenes that no child should witness. I hope that the Minister will report that many of the board’s recommendations have now been implemented.
	Performing tasks such as controlling our borders and processing applications for asylum or for visas requires staff to undertake that work. When they took office, the Government decided to cut 8,500 Home Office jobs and 22% of the staff at the UKBA. That, has inevitably led to massive queues at ports and airports, weaker security, huge backlogs of casework and, in some areas, an almost non-existent Customs operation. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—who is not in the Chamber now—asked the Government to explain the rationale of the cuts and how they had been implemented in the Department. It seems that a head count was taken and a percentage cut was made with no real management. What we are seeing now is virtual panic management, in terms of both control of the borders and the case load itself.
	Let me give one stark example. I have constituents who work at Heathrow, and sometimes anonymous letters are pushed through my door. I found the latest among my correspondence last weekend. It states:
	“I am writing to you anonymously as identifying myself will cause me to get into trouble with my employers.
	I want to bring to your attention that over the course of the last few weeks, on at least six separate occasions, UKBA officers at Heathrow Airport have missed disembarking subjects who are of interest to the security services for terrorism matters. These subjects are commonly referred to as SX subjects. They should have been identified upon presentation of their passport to UKBA officers and then referred on to the security service and police, but this has not happened.
	This comes at a time when UKBA have had to draft in officers from different areas to make up the shortfall in frontline staff, following the recent political and media pressure regarding queue times. Unfortunately they have had to use staff with little or no training (such as MOD police and office staff) and in some cases bring back people who retired many years ago and are very out of touch with modern working practices. It is inevitable that with these elastoplast measures, mistakes are going to happen.”
	I receive such reports from staff regularly. When the Minister and I met representatives of the Public and
	Commercial Services Union last week, they made clear that morale was at rock bottom, particularly at Heathrow. Staff are being dragged in from all over the country. High-grade staff at grade 6 and grade 7 are working unlimited overtime just to plug the gaps. Where have they been brought from? Customs.
	Let me give the House an example that we were given last week. For the week beginning 30 April, the Felixstowe-based team responsible for ro-ro freight control was sent to Heathrow; there was no replacement cover. The following week, the Felixstowe-based team responsible for general maritime and general aviation controls at small ports and airports was reassigned to Heathrow. That meant that one of eight detection teams, which were already understaffed by 30%, was completely absent. I think that the UKBA is in turmoil. In addition to the failure to control our borders because of lack of staff, we are putting the country at risk, just as the Olympics are about to take place and we will have the largest influx of people into the country for decades.
	On the backlogs of immigration and asylum casework, the Minister will no doubt assure us that additional staff are being taken on. We now hear that Serco has offered its services free of charge for six months to tackle some of this backlog. Some of us remember that it was Serco incompetence—lost files and so forth—that caused most of the backlog that we experienced a number of years ago.
	The current situation is as follows: chaotic management; staff being bussed or flown in from all over the country who are either untrained or not adequately trained to do the border control job; and a backlog of immigration and asylum casework building up at the Home Office. The Government response is to try to change the rules, which will not deter people from making applications at all. It will also not deter people from wanting to make some form of appeal, but, as Members have said, the appeal will come to MPs, rather than go through the process. We will be inundated, therefore. We will be inundated with the pleas and cries of people just for fairness, so that their families can visit them and they can live and celebrate normal family life, including weddings and other celebrations.
	We have reached the stage where Public and Commercial Services Union members are balloting on industrial action because their morale is so low. They feel that they have gone through a pay freeze for a number of years and are now faced with intolerable pressures—including bullying and victimisation—from management. They feel that they are being provoked to do whatever they can to defend themselves, and what they can do is take industrial action to highlight this issue and force management and Ministers to the negotiating table to recognise the realities.
	More staff are needed, and they are needed immediately—the Government are recruiting some, but not enough. A change in the industrial relations atmosphere is also needed, as is an end to the privatisation and an acceptance that people need to be rewarded for the work they do. There must be respect for those at the front line. They must be listened to; people such as my constituents who send anonymous letters, because they know no other way of whistleblowing or raising issues without being victimised by management, must be listened to.
	I am fearful about what might happen over the next few months because of the Government’s mismanagement of this process. I criticised the last Government, but this mess is even bigger than the mess was back then.

Simon Hughes: The issue we are debating is very important, and I thank the Home Affairs Committee for its continuing work on it. I encourage it to continue monitoring the work of the UK Border Agency. I am also grateful to the Minister for his active engagement with this issue, and with me as a constituency MP when I have brought cases to his attention or to the attention of his staff.
	My general analysis is somewhat different from that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), as I do not think that under the last Government we were anywhere near nirvana in respect of immigration and asylum cases. The situation is considerably better now than it was under the last Labour Government. This has been a huge and intractable issue for the Home Office over many years. I am grateful for the progress that has been made, but that does not mean that I in any way think the UKBA or the Government have fully addressed all the problems.
	Although we are talking about the UKBA, what we are actually talking about is people. I shall therefore refer to some people. First, I shall mention the two people in my office who every day try to unravel the knots of other people’s family lives when dealing with asylum and immigration cases. Magali Tang and James Harper are wonderful public servants—working for me as an MP—and they are hugely valued by our constituents. When I last checked a year or two ago, I was either first or second in the league table of Members who brought Home Office-related immigration and asylum constituency issues to the authorities. I have no idea where I am in the league table now, and that does not matter, but I do know that a large volume of such work gets done. Some 40% of the work that comes before my constituency office is Home Office-related, and we try to give a good service.
	Achieving that depends on the individuals at the other end of the process as well—on the personality of the account manager. I pay tribute to Claire Shacklock who previously did the job for us in Southwark, when Southwark was an area on its own, and I pay tribute to her successor, Helen O’Brien, who is the account manager in Lambeth, Bexley, Greenwich and Southwark. After the handover, it took a little while for us to get the communication established and working well. It is now working well, and her staff are beginning to understand what we expect and are beginning to deliver. That required us to be quite gruff with them, however. We had to tell them what they needed to do and make them understand the urgency of some of the cases.
	I asked my constituency team to tell me the three key issues. The first of them was post-study work visas. This is what my team said:
	“This route is being closed and so everyone has applied at once, and this has thrown the system into chaos. We have had between 15-20 cases in the last month of people who have been waiting around 3 months, when the published waiting time is 1 month. They are stuck as they can’t work and some people are losing
	accommodation/job offers because of the delay. Why did the UKBA not see this coming and what are they doing to make sure the backlog is cleared quickly?”
	The second issue was reconsideration requests, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned. My team said:
	“Currently, when people make ‘in country’ applications for leave to remain and these are refused without a right of appeal, applicants can ask the UKBA to ‘reconsider’ the decision. This was always an informal process but it was accepted that in general the UKBA would reconsider a case once. It seems that a backlog of reconsideration requests has built up and now the UKBA are saying they are reviewing how they deal with these requests. What does this mean? Are they going to stop reconsidering cases”—
	or define what a “reconsideration” is?
	“If so, they need to say so to people clearly. In one case we had recently, a woman who had been told her reconsideration request had been received later received a letter from Serco saying that according to the UKBA, she had no basis of stay and should leave immediately.”
	The left hand and the right hand were clearly not co-ordinated, which was very “confusing” as the Serco letter
	“didn’t refer to her reconsideration request, which she felt was still outstanding. If the UKBA are going to stop reconsidering, they must surely explain this clearly to people, not just get Serco to send them letters telling them to go home.”
	I hope it does not stop reconsidering; I hope there is a reconsideration process, and we know what it is and how it works.
	The third issue my team raised was the UKBA website, which
	“despite recent re-modelling, is still not well organised or user friendly, and constituents regularly report this to us. It needs to use clearer, non-technical English wherever possible and be better laid out. The DirectGov website is a good example of how a website can be user friendly, as is NHS Direct (medical advice online). There are always links saying ‘do you need help with x....if so click here…’, ‘was this what you were looking for?’…that sort of thing, and the English is very good and accessible. The UKBA website lags a long way behind these websites.”
	It surely cannot be beyond the wit of Government, with all their technical advisers and expertise, to get that sorted out. Please can it be sorted out soon?
	I would now like to make a few points of my own. As has been said, there are still a huge number of really rubbish legal advisers and solicitors. I am weekly, if not daily, rescuing people from having to pay considerable sums that they do not have for so-called advice, often bad, telling them to take action they do not need to take and that will not produce any positive results. That gives them false hope. They are also often asked to pay for a service that is never given because the case in question is either not dealt with at all or not soon enough to be of any use. Please can the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner get a grip and do its job properly? It is still not effective. It does not clamp down on bad advice; it tackles only crime and maladministration. That is not good enough. I should not have to be perpetually writing to these so-called solicitors or so-called advisers saying, “I want the money to be given back to my constituent because you haven’t done anything.” That is a scandal and it needs to be addressed.
	The problem of so-called bogus colleges is not as bad as it was but I am not persuaded that there are not still some that do not produce the service they advertise. I
	encourage the Government to continue to be relentless in such cases. I want to encourage more students to come to this country and I think the Government understand the benefits of that—the universities and colleges certainly do—but that cause will not be helped if bogus colleges continue.
	My penultimate point is to ask whether we can please not send people back to places such as Sri Lanka if they are Tamils whose life and liberty are likely to be at risk? I still think that the Home Office is not sensitive enough in such cases and I want a review of cases where there are historic and current conflicts.
	Finally, I would like to help people to see the good side of some of the work done by those people with us. On Saturday, I went to the wedding of Sheku Jalloh and Raphaëlle de Joffrey. Sheku came to see me when he was in his teens as a Liberian asylum seeker and refugee. He has now married a Swiss graduate whom he met here, they have settled down and they are a good news story. There are lots of good news stories—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the work of the UK Border Agency. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee and, as our Chair has said, we continue to scrutinise the work of the agency. I should point out that, although I might talk about the agency, it cannot and should not be separated from the Home Office. We have been very keen as a Committee to stress that point through our reports.
	In our most recent report, we drew attention to the worryingly high levels of decisions that are overturned on appeal, in which applicants successfully challenge the initial decisions made by UKBA. Some right hon. and hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. I intend to concentrate on one particular aspect of that question: women’s asylum cases and the fact that the initial decisions are not always the right ones.
	UKBA rightly wants decisions to be made as quickly as possible, and of course I support that, but there is always a balance to be struck between speed and quality in the decision-making process and I am not sure that we always get it right. I remain seriously concerned about the quality of decision making on women’s asylum claims at the initial stage. Many women claiming asylum in the UK are fleeing gender-based persecution and have experienced sexual violence, and we know that rape is all too often used as a weapon of war. In 2010, of the 18,000 people claiming asylum in the UK only a third were women, but the appeal rate at tribunal is higher for women than for men according to the most recent Home Office figures that are available.
	I am by no means suggesting that women should receive preferential treatment or that their claims should take precedence, but it is important that they receive a fair hearing and that there is recognition of the experiences women have when they come to the UK and of those they have had, including torture, and of how those experiences can differ from those of men. In order for that to happen, the Home Office and the UKBA need to make a number of changes, becoming more responsive and gender-sensitive in their work. I commend them for
	the work they have done so far. They have worked with Asylum Aid and other organisations to make some important changes, but there is still much to do.
	First, female interviewers and interpreters should be available for women applicants. I know that that is meant to happen, but it does not always happen. Female applicants are understandably reluctant to talk openly about experiences of sexual violence, but it can become impossible if a man is in the room because a female interviewer or interpreter is not available. Sometimes, women bring children with them to the initial interview or to follow-up interviews and it is often wholly inappropriate for them to be expected to discuss experiences of sexual violence in front of their children.
	The barriers mean that women do not always disclose sexual violence at interview, and if they do so later or submit additional evidence, it can be viewed by the UKBA as an attempt to be dishonest or to deceive. Those barriers aside, trauma and the nature of the violence can make it exceptionally difficult for women to be fully open immediately with people who are strangers to them. A recent report by Women for Refugee Women has highlighted those problems.
	I would also suggest that the UKBA’s country of origin information should be developed further to include additional information on the position of women in-country. The agency has gender guidelines, but it is not always clear whether those guidelines and the country of origin information are followed as well as they could be by decision makers. I also believe that it is important that judges who sit on immigration tribunals should be offered appropriate training on gender-based persecution so that they fully understand the experiences of the women before them at tribunal.
	I know that the Home Office wants to see a “right first time” approach. I agree and I hope that I have set out some areas where I believe that that could be supported. All asylum seekers deserve a fair hearing. Many will have their applications legitimately refused, but they deserve that fair hearing. A considerable cost to the taxpayer is associated with decisions that are not right first time and the National Audit Office has identified some of those costs. I believe that we could make significant savings if we improved the quality of the decision making at the initial stage.
	There is of course a human cost to the individual applicant, but making improvements to the decision-making process also makes economic sense. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the changes that can be made to bring about a system that is fairer not just to the applicant but to us all, including the UK taxpayer.

Pete Wishart: UKBA—the United Kingdom Borders Agency—might have a UK-wide remit, but it does not particularly serve Scotland. In Scotland, we have a different range of issues, challenges and priorities and the UKBA cannot even start to deal with our priorities.
	We have issues to do with immigration and population, particularly concerning demography, and when I get to my feet I always try to set out why things are different in
	Scotland. I shall try to do it once again so that the House can more clearly understand. We occupy just over a third of the landmass of the UK but we have 8.4% of the population. We are one of the least densely populated parts of western Europe. Of course we need a different approach to immigration and our border agency, but will this Government consider any sort of policy that is regional or international within the UK? Not a bit of it. We have to experience the same decisions and policy as the rest of the UK and that is utter and total madness.
	Our population reached 5.2 million in the course of last month, which is the highest population that Scotland has ever had. The Scottish Government issued a press release to welcome that fact. Could hon. Members imagine the UK Minister for Immigration ever putting out a press release welcoming the fact that the UK population was at an all-time high? That, more than anything, demonstrates the difference between Scotland and the UK.
	What do we want from the UKBA? We want it to go away, basically. We need a specific Scottish agency which could serve our immigration priorities, our population necessities and our demographic needs. We have big problems. Our population is going up, but we do not know the medium to long-term prospects. There was a fear only a few months ago that Scotland’s population might dip below the iconic 5 million mark for the first time since the mid-20th century. That would have been a disaster for us. We have an ageing population and a shrinking working population and we need people to come to Scotland with specific skills and to meet specific requirements.
	What the Government are doing to our universities is chaotic and disastrous and I want them to stop. We have more people coming to our universities from overseas than the rest of the UK; 19% of the students at Scottish universities come from overseas, as do 10% of the teaching staff. The competition for international students—the brightest and the best—is sensitive and fragile. The Government’s policies are deterring students from coming here and that is causing chaos for our universities. The Minister for Immigration has heard that from Universities Scotland, the CBI, the National Union of Students in Scotland and practically everybody who takes an interest. I ask him just to stop it. Leave our universities alone. Allow us to continue to attract the brightest and the best.

Keith Vaz: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Committee’s recommendation that student numbers should not be included in immigration statistics, because by their very nature genuine students will come and study, then return?

Pete Wishart: Quite right—why are students considered immigrants? They are here for only a few years.
	We face particular issues with students at university, and I hope that the House will bear with me, as I should like to try to explain what they are. We need to continue to be a centre of excellence in Scotland. We have three universities in the top 100 in ratings around the world. Today, we have heard about the Higgs boson, whose existence was proposed by Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh university professor, which shows the excellence of Scottish universities. Those places are centres of excellence because
	we can attract the best and brightest, and we need to continue to be able to do so. However, we cannot do so if the new immigration rules and UKBA policies are implemented—and for what end? Students do not have recourse to public funds. They pay fees and maintenance, and have minimal impact on public services.
	The benefits that we see in Scotland are not just financial, significant as they are—international students contribute £500 million to our economy. We gain so much by working with and learning from students from hundreds of countries who enhance our education system, our distinctive culture and Scottish society. We want to be at the forefront of the international marketplace for ideas and imagination. We want to continue to attract the brightest and best overseas academic talent to help build a smarter, wealthier and fairer Scotland. We want to welcome talented people to live, learn, work and remain here, but the proposals by the UK Government send out entirely the wrong message. They are already being perceived negatively overseas, deterring prospective students from applying to study across the UK, and that is particularly so in Scotland.
	UKBA is simply doing its job: making tougher rules and enforcing them ever more rigidly. Perhaps the Minister for Immigration will confirm this, but I think that it is looking for a reduction of around 80,000 students across the UK—that is the target—and by heck it is going to achieve it regardless of the collateral damage to our universities. If it is bad for universities, tough luck. If we lose out on attracting the students we need for our economy and our institutions, too bad—UKBA has a job to do, and it is going to do it.
	If it bad for students who now have to be relatively prosperous to come to the UK, for goodness’ sake they should not be poor and destitute if they are fleeing oppression, because in that condition they will undoubtedly remain. Our treatment of failed asylum seekers who cannot return to their country of origin because of fear of persecution or oppression should shame all in this House. There is almost positively a policy of destitution.
	How is the UKBA dealing with people who are here legally?

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast number of people in this country feel strongly about the question of failed asylum seekers and destitution, and provide food, support and somewhere to live in churches, mosques and other places? I agree that it is an absolute disgrace that we expect people to live in complete destitution until they have got through the relevant number of years, which the Government propose to extend, before they can get residence in this country. We need to be humane about it.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is spot on. I see those efforts in Scotland, particularly Glasgow, where we have a number of failed asylum seekers. We cannot return them to countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe—it would be absurd to do so—and the policy of destitution that the Government have imposed on them is a disgrace. We in the House are rightly appalled about the way in which we deal with them.
	The people with whom we come into contact are those we have heard about from Members across the Chamber, and a feature of the debate has been the
	ultimate frustration experienced by ordinary Members of Parliament who have to deal with the UKBA. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and several Members who attended that debate are here today. The House indulged in the usual kickabout stuff about marauding foreign rapists and murderers on every street corner who go home to their state-funded apartment and get all their swanky lawyers to invent reasons for them to stay in the UK. However, we deal with the real, mundane issues that are brought to our offices by people who suffer as a result of trying to ensure that they can stay here.
	The UKBA’s job is quite simple: to stop people coming to the UK who want to come to our shores—people who should not be here should be kicked out—and to frustrate as much as possible those who are trying to go up the citizenship or immigration ladder. I have only a few minutes, but I want to mention two cases that I have dealt with. One is quite a celebrated case that the Immigration Minister may remember and shows the type of case we have to deal with. It concerns a lovely guy called Swarthwick Salins, who lived in my constituency. The UKBA, which was doing its job, looked into his bank account, and found that instead of £800, there was £740 there. There was no phone call to Swarthwick to say, “Listen, Mr Salins, there is an issue with your bank account. You’re £80 below the necessary level—this is a warning that you are £80 short.” The one and only course of action by the UKBA was to boot him out. That is the way it officiously applies the rules.
	Let me explain who Swarthwick Salins is. He is a PhD student from St Andrews university, he has three Scottish children, he is a strong member of his church and a loyal member of the community. A community campaign was launched to ensure that Swarthwick Salins could remain in Perth and it was backed by practically everybody there. I would have paid the £80, and I would have put money on with the Minister, because I know that I would win the bet that he will never reduce immigration to the numbers that he wants.
	The Government want to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. It ain’t going to happen. We live in an interconnected globalised world. We are here in London. One third of the people who live and work in London come from outwith the UK. That is the type of world we live in. It is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide to imagine for a minute that we are going to be able to deal with these issues. What has immigration done for London, as Monty Python would say? London is the most successful, dynamic city in the world. Let us hear a little more about the positive sides of immigration. Let us talk it up. Let us see what we can do to try to encourage a good feeling about it, because the Minister is not going to reach his targets. Regardless of an immigration-obsessed Conservative Government giving massive resources to the UKBA, the issue will never be effectively addressed.
	Thankfully, in a few years, we will have control over and responsibility for our immigration policy in Scotland. We will do it differently. We will work in partnership with the rest of the UK, but we will not kick people out for £80, we will not harass overseas students who want to come and study in our universities, and we will deal with immigration damn well better than the UKBA is doing just now.

Chris Bryant: To follow on directly from the nationalist argument that we have just heard, I presume that when Scotland is an independent country, if it is an independent country, it will join the European Union. Membership of the European Union requires that all new members are fully signed up to Schengen. Consequently, there will be a border between Scotland and England, so the Scottish border agency will spend most of its time dealing with whether people from England can go into Scotland. It is a nonsense.
	A large number of right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate this afternoon. It is an oddity that the debate is on a set of reports in relation to the UK Border Agency, yet it is also about spending £11 billion on the Home Office—a curiosity of the way that we do our financial expenditure in the House. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and from the hon. Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward). Most notably, the greatest panjandrum of the lot, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) kicked us off, and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) spoke as well.
	In his speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said one thing to which I took exception. He referred to a 72-year-old as being old. I am sure he thinks a 72-year-old is not old but is just coming to the prime of their life.

Gerald Kaufman: I would say that a 72-year-old is gradually approaching the prime of her life.

Chris Bryant: And wisdom is slowly descending upon her.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is not in his seat but who, I am sure, will be back in a moment, referred to the fact that a large part of the casework of many hon. Members relates to the UKBA, and we heard the voice of those Members in the Chamber this afternoon. It was noticeable that only one Back-Bench Conservative Member made a speech in the debate, which is different from previous occasions. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
	The role of the UKBA is to provide an immigration system that is efficient, effective, humane and as watertight as possible, and it must surely be an own goal if people can come in and out of our country or overstay, willy-nilly or, if the system is so complex that it is easy to circumvent or utterly impossible for an ordinary sane person to understand, or if the queues are so lengthy at our airports or ports that the UK’s reputation as a place to do business or as a place to come as a tourist is harmed, or if it costs too much money to run.
	In the motion that we are discussing, we are spending £11,034,371,000. That is a significant amount of money and our constituents would want to make sure that it was being spent well.
	As the various reports referred to in the debate—two of which are by the Home Affairs Committee—have made clear, the UKBA has not had an easy time. Last
	summer’s experiments by the Home Secretary meant that warnings index checks were suspended 354 times. They were suspended on European economic area school groups of under-16s travelling by coach at juxtaposed controls, originally with the permission of Ministers. The policy was then extended to sea ports and the Eurostar, which Ministers were notified of, but from February 2011 the age restriction was completely lifted without any degree of permission. The agency’s records on the suspension of warnings index checks were extremely poor, as Mr John Vine has testified. The secure ID was suspended 482 times between June 2010 and November 2011, 463 of which were at Heathrow, the country’s busiest airport.
	We understand that this was all supposedly because the UKBA interpreted the Immigration Minister’s letter of 27 January 2011 as approval to lift the secure ID. He believes that that was not his intention whatsoever. The Home Secretary made clear her opposition to the moves being mooted on 13 April, yet it continued. This is obviously a sign of an organisation in chaos. Indeed, the independent chief inspector’s report states that
	‘the language used in both the “Summer pressures” submission to Ministers and the response provided’—
	in other words, by Ministers—
	“was not clear and as a result was open to misinterpretation… there was confusion amongst staff”
	not least because the Home Secretary’s office note did not clearly define any of the terms being used.
	I would like to refer to another report by the independent chief inspector, on border control operations at Heathrow terminal 3 from August to November 2011, the same period covered by the Home Affairs Committee’s report. The inspector identified even more worrying signs, first of an
	“inconsistent application of border security checks”,
	and secondly of “completely inadequate” record keeping in two thirds of the cases examined. That matters, because all the references we have heard in the debate to paperwork further down the system being inadequate, poorly looked after, incomplete or disappearing into the black hole, or the Tardis, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East referred to it, stem from inadequate record keeping at the beginning. However, the report found such inadequate record keeping not only at terminal 3, but at Gatwick’s north terminal.
	In addition, the inspector found:
	“The introduction of team based working in July 2011, coupled with a new shift working system and the amalgamation of immigration and detection roles at Heathrow was far too much organisational change during the busiest time of the year at Heathrow.”
	That goes to the heart of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made on how staff morale can be kept up so that they do an effective and efficient job if they are trying to cope with so much change at the same time. Perhaps we are demanding too much of them. The inspector also found that all this was
	“complicated by staff reductions of 15% at Terminal 3”.
	We want secure borders, but it is difficult to provide them if we do not provide enough resources to allow the job to be done properly. When I visited Stansted on Monday to see the operation there, staff working for the UKBA made it clear to me that all the new staff who have been drafted in to help in the run-up to the
	Olympics and through the games receive only three days of training. They are unable to do the full job that is necessary and, consequently, there is a real security problem. In addition, the fact that they are suddenly recruiting back from retirement people who were made redundant only last year makes it look as if they do not really know what they are doing.
	The report also found that:
	“The Agency was failing proactively to deal with absconders,”
	and I really want to raise that issue with the Minister, because there is a serious problem with absconders, and it is not just at terminal 3—although the report found that it had increased there
	“by 62% between 2009 and 2011.”
	Indeed, not only did the figure for those absconding go up, but the figure for people who were captured having absconded went down, falling from 40% to 16%, meaning that during that period alone some 150 people absconded—and have not been found.
	I raise the matter because I worry that the general level of absconders is rising throughout the country, so, first, I should be grateful if the Minister said how many people who have been told that they are no longer able to stay in this country are still in this country. Can he pitch a figure? Is it 100,000, 150,000, 250,000? I suspect that it is about 150,000.
	Secondly, the Government and the UKBA have absolutely no idea where many of those people may be, or whether they have left the country, and that must surely be a concern, so can the Minister confirm whether all absconders are added to the national police computer, either as wanted or with a local trace mark, so that when somebody pops up in another area it is possible to track them down? If they are not, the UKBA is failing in its task.
	I raise one other problem in relation to the independent inspector’s report, namely that of measuring queues. I noticed at Stansted that the UKBA starts measuring the length of a queue only from the moment at which someone enters the terminal building, but the queues often start long before the terminal building, and the time from the moment someone enters the terminal to their passport being dealt with is normally only 20 minutes, because the vast majority of the queue is backed up way down a series of tunnels, on trains and, sometimes, on aeroplanes, so I am distrustful of the figures for queuing times at Stansted.

Keith Vaz: I, too, went to Stansted, albeit at a different time from my hon. Friend, and the problem is that, when British citizens return to their own country, they are held by airline officials just before they join the escalators, all the way back to the plane, and that, when they reach the immigration hall, half the kiosks are un-personned.

Chris Bryant: Yes, “un-personned”: very correct of my right hon. Friend.
	In addition, one of the biggest problems, which applies not only to Stansted but elsewhere, is that many staff who have been brought in to help in the run-up to the Olympics, a known problem that is coming along the track, are not able to work with non-EU passengers, and consequently the moment any arrive there is an enormous back-up. Further, when I was there on Monday
	morning not a single e-gate was working, and I understand that they were not working at any point at all on Monday.
	The fact that e-gates are not working effectively is a significant problem across the estate and at several different ports. When IRIS finally goes in September, the real problem will be whether we have any automated system on which we can rely, so I should be grateful if the Minister commented on the future of automation.
	I have one final complaint in relation to the inspector’s report, because at Heathrow terminal 3 there was a 58% drop in the issuing of IS81 forms, on which a passenger is told that they will be subject to further interrogation. That is important, as all too often in a simple desire to cut queues, we are cutting back on security, because staff are not able to do their job properly.
	There is a further problem in relation to foreign national prisoners. Of the 5,012 who completed their sentences in 2010-11, 3,248 were removed, 471 were allowed to remain but the cases of 1,300—a staggering figure—are still outstanding. Only 500 of those are detained. There are other unspecified issues with 20 of them and, as I said earlier, 27% of them—some 350—are just categorised as unknown issues. In other words, the UKBA has next to no idea about what is happening with those people or about the likelihood of moving forward in a way that makes their lives easier or our country more secure.
	In addition, immigration tribunals overturn UKBA decisions a dramatic number of times—41% of appeals are lost by the UKBA. That is a significant problem. Obviously, it delays people’s ability to get on with their lives and it is a significant additional expense for the UKBA. How will the Minister tackle the problem of so many appeals being lost at tribunal?
	I have a minor comment to make about the common travel area, also at Stansted. It was pretty clear that it would be easy for someone to negotiate their way around without going through proper border controls, having printed off a boarding pass pretending that they had flown in from Ireland when in fact they had flown in from somewhere else. I hope that the Minister will be able to close that loophole.
	My final point is that the Government are planning to cut staff at the UKBA by 5,300. I believe that that will make it phenomenally difficult for the agency to do its job effectively. In particular, in the run-up to the Olympics, which everybody knew were coming along, we have already seen how difficult it has been to maintain strong security and a decently short length of queue.
	Lots of people have been flown in from different parts of the country as emergency measures in the run-up to the Olympics, and the relevant people have been prevented from taking holidays during the Olympics and Paralympics. My concern is that the moment that is over, it will be phenomenally difficult for the UKBA, without those resources, to get anywhere near doing its job properly. We can complain about the UKBA, but if we do not give it the resources to do its job properly, our complaints are worth nothing.

Damian Green: I start by thanking the Home Affairs Committee for its reports and its Chairman for his introduction, which set the
	tone of this debate. That tone has largely been thoughtful; oddly enough, there was more consensus that I might have expected when the debate started. Parliamentary scrutiny of Government Departments is crucial in ensuring that they are delivering Government policy properly and offering value for money.
	A huge number of points have been made, and I will deal with them in a moment, but I would like to start with an overview of the UK Border Agency. The agency has changed radically in recent months. Much of the speech by the shadow Minister was devoted to the John Vine reports of last year, which were, of course, important. That is why, in February this year, the Home Secretary told the House that the UK Border Force would split from the UKBA to become a separate operational command with its own ethos of law enforcement, led by its own director general and directly accountable to Ministers.
	Since then both the UK Border Force and the UKBA have done their different jobs in protecting the border and ensuring that Britain remains open for business, checking people travelling to the UK before they arrive—through visa checks, intelligence and the use of the e-borders system.
	In this climate of change, we all rightly expect the agency to continue to deliver. The work of the agency is crucial in controlling migration and protecting national security. The Committee’s reports on the work of the agency have shown that, as with all organisations, there is certainly room for improvement. Of course I acknowledge that, and the Government have accepted most of the Committee’s recommendations.
	I have said previously to the Committee that the agency is good in parts but needs to improve. That is why a transformation plan has been initiated by the chief executive, Rob Whiteman, to address precisely the weaknesses identified by many right hon. and hon. Members. Even if the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) does not necessarily agree with all the policies I implement, she would, as she said, like the system to work properly, and I can assure her that that is the purpose of many of the changes that Rob Whiteman is making. I am grateful for the remarks by my right hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that at a constituency level their experience is of an organisation that is getting a bit better. That is clearly a step in the right direction.
	The agency faces a serious challenge—to reduce net migration while ensuring that migrants who do come here are of the calibre we need to benefit the UK. As I have said from this Dispatch Box before, the immigration debate is partly about numbers, but it should not be wholly about numbers. We have always been clear that controlled, selective migration is good for the UK. Encouraging tourism is essential for the UK economy, and this will obviously be particularly true over the next few months as we welcome an unprecedented number of visitors from around the world.
	Bringing down net migration and attracting the brightest and the best are not mutually exclusive objectives. We need to know that the right numbers of people are coming here and that the right people are coming here—people who will benefit Britain, not just those
	who will benefit from Britain. We want an immigration policy that reflects consensus about who should be able to come here and an immigration system that can actually deliver it, with a legal framework that reflects the will of Parliament while respecting our international legal obligations, and a system and a policy that make immigration work for Britain economically.
	The Migration Advisory Committee recently published a study of how we calculate the costs and benefits of immigration. Its view is that the Government should focus on the impact of migration on the welfare of residents rather than on the old assumption that because immigration adds to GDP it strengthens the economy and therefore, logically, the more immigration the better. This key insight of the MAC’s work gives us the basis for a more intelligent debate and supports a more selective approach to migration. The comprehensive set of reforms that we have introduced on work, students, settlement and family have set the way forward for such a system.
	At the heart of the organisation of that system—the subject of the Committee’s reports—lies our visa regime. The UKBA administers one of the most competitive and efficient visa services in the world, ensuring that tourists and other genuine visitors can travel to the UK, enjoy what our country has to offer, and then return home. I should like to put some figures on this, because it is often under-reported. In 2011, the agency processed over 2.5 million visa applications—a 3% increase on 2010 and a 7% increase on 2009. The most recent set of migration statistics—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) should listen to this after his claim that it is impossible to bring immigration down—showed that numbers of visa grants in every category are falling, apart from those for visit visas. Student visas are down by 21%, family visas are down by 16%, work visas are down by 8%, and visit visas are up by 9%. Those are the key figures in the immigration debate. They demonstrate how the agency is delivering the reductions in long-term immigration that we expect while not preventing valuable and genuine visitors from coming to the UK. These include people from some of our key markets such as China and India, where we have twice, and in some cases three times, as many visa application centres as any of our competitors.
	But of course the public have perfectly reasonable concerns about the number of migrants who continue to come here. The changes that we have already made are starting to have an impact, but we have always said that it would take the full term of this Parliament to achieve our objectives. As has been widely—I think universally—agreed in the debate, that is largely due to an ineffective system that goes back to a time way before this Government. It has taken a raft of tough new policy measures merely to stop the steady rise in net migration before we see it coming down.
	The checks made by the UKBA represent the key tools in ensuring that our requirements are met and that our policies deliver what we expect. The agency now has a presence in 137 countries, and despite the considerable logistical challenges involved in running this global operation, it routinely exceeds its service standard of processing 90% of visa applications within three weeks. In 2011, it processed half the non-settlement visa applications and two thirds of the business visa applications within five days. It did so with a focus on quality
	decisions and excellent customer service. I say gently that the sustained good performance of the agency’s visa service has perhaps escaped the Select Committee’s otherwise all-seeing eye. However, no discussion of the work of the UKBA would be complete without acknowledging it. I hope that members of the Committee agree.
	A number of issues have been raised, and I will start with students. We are dealing with migrant students who have been left without a college following the introduction of the tough new rules for institutions that wish to sponsor non-EU students. About 500 colleges have disappeared from the register and are no longer allowed to bring in foreign students. That is a distinct public policy success and, again, one that is not often acknowledged.

Virendra Sharma: Although those colleges are now not functioning and have had their licences withdrawn, the British high commissions in places such as Delhi, Pakistan and Nepal have already issued the visas and received the fees, and the students have paid their college fees but are not allowed to study. Hundreds of students have lost their money because the colleges have closed, which is no fault of theirs. What are the Government doing about that?

Damian Green: I will say two things. First, there has been a huge amount of fraud in the past and the sweeping away of bogus colleges reduces the chances for such fraud. This point was also raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Individual students have 60 days to find a new college and their visa is still operational for that period. That is the sensible first step for them to take.
	Stripping away the bogus colleges is only the first point. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a perfectly reasonable point about those who overstay or abscond. The UKBA has been working through tens of thousands of leave curtailments. It is stripping students and others of their right to remain in the UK if they have no right to be here and providing them with written notification that they should return home. In recent months, it has dealt with almost 25,000 curtailments. To ensure that such people return home, the UKBA is undertaking a summer enforcement campaign to target those who have overstayed their visa. The aim of the campaign is to galvanise intelligence-led enforcement activity against such individuals, with the intention of removing them. So far this summer, we have removed almost 1,800 overstayers. As has been said, that is probably 1,800 more overstayers than have been removed in any previous year. That is not just students, but all overstayers.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I apologise, but we are coming to the end of the debate and there are lots of points that I wish to respond to.
	Foreign national offenders were mentioned by a number of Members. We now start deportation action 18 months before the end of the sentence to speed up the process. We are also chartering more flights to remove foreign offenders. Last year, we removed more than 4,500 foreign criminals—43% of them before the end of their prison
	sentence. Many Members raised the issue of those who are released from detention while awaiting deportation. In only 30% of those cases is the decision made by the UKBA. The courts make the other decisions.
	The asylum legacy was perhaps the biggest bugbear of hon. Members from all parts of the House. I sympathise with them entirely. There are currently 80,000 cases in the asylum controlled archive. That is down 18,000 from last September. There is some confusion about this matter, but no new applications are being added to the archive. If we find cases while mopping up around the agency that belong in the archive, which is for very old cases, they are put there and processed. Nobody should be under the misapprehension—I think it was the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) who brought this up—that new applications are going into the archive; they are simply not.
	As has been mentioned, we are now checking cases not just against public sector databases but against credit scoring databases and so on, to see whether people are leaving any footprint in this country. If they are not, there is clearly evidence that they have left, which allows us to concentrate on those who are here so that everyone gets a decision. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, the target is finally to clear the backlog this year.
	Another big issue that many right hon. and hon. Members brought up was the changes that we are making to family visit visa appeals, which we are restricting. I should point out that no other category of visit visa attracts a full right of appeal, and it is a disproportionate use of taxpayers’ money to fund a full right of appeal for a visitor, to be heard by a tribunal in the UK. No other country does that. From 9 July, the new regulations will restrict the full right of appeal to those applying to visit a close family member with settled refugee or humanitarian status.
	I repeat that it is quicker for people to reapply than to appeal, and it is not the case that every decision is simply rubber-stamped. I believe it was the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) who brought that up. I assure him that each case is examined by a more senior member of staff, and that some decisions are changed by the entry clearance manager.

Virendra Sharma: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I apologise, but I do not have time to give way.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned a number of individual cases, and if he wishes to grab me after the debate I will of course take them away and look at them. I strongly recommend that his office use the Members’ hotline and the case owner system, as other Members do. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, relationships can develop that may well deliver a faster service to constituents. I seek to reply to the many letters that I receive from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton as quickly and efficiently as possible, but he might find it easier and better for his constituents if he used the systems that have been set up precisely because of the various problems that have existed over the years.
	I take the points that many Members made about the use of intelligence. We have set up a special directorate to use intelligence and information from the public much better, and we are developing a central database to enable allegations to be tracked on an end-to-end basis. I listened carefully to the point that, if possible, people who have given information should get some sort of response about what has happened, but I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that that cannot always happen.
	The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has brought to our attention a few points of detail in the new appeal regulations, but they do not require us not to introduce those regulations on 9 July.
	I do not believe that everything in the UKBA is perfect. It has a number of difficult jobs to do, and mistakes will be made, but the agency is now working to a clear and comprehensive set of policies to reduce net migration and is transforming its operations to perform its day-to-day business more efficiently. That is the current reality of the UKBA, and I hope that the many Members who for obvious reasons take a personal interest in its activities recognise that it is changing for the better.

Keith Vaz: I will speak only very briefly because the Home Affairs Committee does not want to intrude on the time available for the Foreign Affairs Committee’s debate, which is about to begin.
	I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. They have all talked about their strong local relationships, and I want to pay tribute to my own caseworker, which I forgot to do earlier. Everyone else has paid tribute to theirs, so I should thank Diana Cank for her work.
	The Home Affairs Committee will continue to scrutinise the UKBA in a robust way. We look forward to seeing the Minister before the Committee on Tuesday, and we will publish our next report in about three weeks.
	Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Nigel Evans: I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred on the Question relating to the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 209, so the Question was agreed to.
	I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred on the Question relating to the draft order on the amendment of curriculum requirements. The Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 199, so the Question is agreed to.
	[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Foreign and Commonwealth Office
	 — 
	UK-Turkey Relations

[Relevant Document: The Twelfth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2010-12, on UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role, HC 1567, and the Government response, Cm 8370 .]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,218,567,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1919 of Session 2010-12,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £53,850,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,152,371,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Richard Ottaway: I am delighted that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, “UK-Turkey Relations and Turkey’s Regional Role”, which was published in April, has been chosen for this debate, and I start by paying tribute to the staff of the FAC who worked hard and long through the night to help the Committee produce the report.
	Turkey’s role on the world stage is influenced by its geography. To the west, it looks to the long-established nations of Europe that are swept up in economic turmoil and that note its economic performance with envy, while, to the south and east, it looks to an unstable region with an uncertain future that can only dream of the democracy that Turkey enjoys.
	The Arab spring, with its tidal wave of anti-Government protests, has unleashed forces of violence and instability, and Syria, whose Government are standing their ground, is sinking further and further into a bloody civil war, yet its neighbour and former ally, Turkey, has not looked on in silence. The force of events has obliged it to abandon its policy of zero problems with neighbours and make an outspoken condemnation of Syria’s brutal response.
	Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish jet has raised the stakes, and Turkey is now on red alert, with six F-16 fighter jets positioned near its border with Syria. Given that Turkey has, until recently, been a long-term friend and ally of Syria, this is a remarkable development. I am sure we all welcome President Assad’s announcement yesterday in which he reportedly expressed regret for the downing of the Turkish plane.
	The Foreign Secretary attended a meeting of an action group on Syria in Geneva last weekend, and, as colleagues might have noticed, there was a significant development. For the first time, all the permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia and China, reached a consensus on positive steps to support the Annan peace plan. It might turn out to be a turning point in the conflict. In responding to this debate, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what he understands to be Turkey’s intentions with respect to Syria and the risk of armed conflict between the two.
	How the crisis will unfold is uncertain, but it is clear that Turkey has an important role in securing democracy, illustrating its importance as a strategic partner for the UK in the middle east. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister visited Turkey shortly after taking office, having placed it after only France, Germany, Afghanistan and the US for his early visits, and we share his view that Turkey is an inspiration that other countries can follow. This has particular resonance since the outbreak of the Arab spring.
	The response to the Arab spring has brought Turkey closer to its western allies, and, at the same time, it has maintained strong relations with the Arab League. Having started its democratic path in the 1950s with the army sitting on its shoulder, Turkey has increasingly emerged as a strong democratic force, with the army focusing on security rather than politics, particularly since the 2011 general election.

Stewart Jackson: I want to take my hon. Friend back to the issue of neighbour relations. Is he aware that the European Commission’s 2011 progress report on Turkey’s accession to the European Union concluded that no progress had been made in the previous year on the normalisation of relations with Armenia?

Richard Ottaway: I am aware of that and if I my hon. Friend will allow me, I will discuss extensively the EU accession point in just a minute.
	The past 10 years have seen a shift in Turkey’s balance of power. It has moved from the Ataturk-style, secular military regime that suppressed Islamist political groups to a much more healthy partnership, involving an army that can live with a moderate Islamic Government under the Justice and Development party—sometimes known as the AKP—led by Prime Minister Erdogan. Now, Turkey is a good example of a secular democracy in a predominantly Muslim country, and the Foreign Office is quite right to treat it as an inspiration. It is an example that can be followed in the emerging democracies in north Africa and the middle east, and no more so than in Egypt, which has just elected its first non-military leader since 1952. Both countries have Sunni majorities and a long history of military dominance, and we can now welcome Mohamed Morsi, from the Freedom and Justice party, as Egypt’s new President. In conducting its parallel inquiry into the Arab spring, my Committee had the privilege of meeting Dr Morsi, and we wish him well in his task of continuing the transition towards democracy in Egypt. The closer we work with both Egypt and Turkey, the better for Britain and the west.
	The current climate presents a great opportunity for Turkey to lead by example in the middle east. Western responses to Prime Minister Erdogan’s Government have often mistakenly been influenced by his party’s so-called Islamist roots. However, we were quite struck by the situation when we visited Turkey last autumn, and our doubts were removed. There was very little evidence that the AKP Government were seeking to Islamicise the Turkish state. The AKP is best seen as akin to a socially conservative Christian Democrat party continuing to govern within a secular state. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Turkey has made an overarching foreign policy realignment away from the west. We should not underestimate the extent to which the increased
	independence and regional focus of Turkish foreign policy may generate differences between Turkish and UK perspectives and policies. However, as long as its foreign policy efforts are directed towards the same ultimate goals, Turkey can add value as a foreign policy partner precisely because it is distinct from the UK.
	The Government are right to continue to support the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. Turkey’s accession would boost the EU’s economic growth and international weight, and at a time of long-term change across the Arab world, its influence could be invaluable. However, Turkey’s application to join the EU has had a troubled history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just pointed out. Progress is slow, but the problems can be overcome. Two major stumbling blocks exist: the opposition of other EU countries, predominantly France, and the continued lack of a settlement on Cyprus.

David Burrowes: Given that Cyprus has assumed the EU presidency this week, is it not extraordinary that Turkey continues not to recognise the Republic of Cyprus and, in practical terms, does not abide by the customs union by continuing to refuse to allow ships and planes from Cyprus to enter its ports and airspace? Surely, at this time, Turkey needs to show in a practical way that it wants to enter the club by recognising that important agreement.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful for that intervention. In truth, the argument cuts both ways, and I will come to just that point shortly.
	Former President Sarkozy was unequivocal in his opposition to Turkish membership. There are signs that President Hollande might be more open than his predecessor to the idea. Turkey’s ambassador to the EU has hinted that France will lift its block on the talks, and I also understand that President Hollande met Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan on the sidelines of the Rio+20 summit last month. Prime Minister Erdogan described the meeting as very good, and President Hollande has agreed to visit Turkey. The omens are promising, although a note of caution should perhaps be struck before we get too enthusiastic.
	What sort of Europe would Turkey be joining? My Committee’s impression was that our Turkish partners felt that they could not contribute to discussions about the EU’s future direction unless and until they join it. In my opinion, Turkey should be involved in the discussion of matters that will affect it intimately. The Minister for Europe, who will reply to this debate, told the Committee, when he gave evidence to us, that Turkey was unlikely to join the EU before 2020, and Turkey has made it clear that it would like to be a member by the centenary of the republic in 2023. However, all bets are off on exactly what the EU will look like in 2023. I would be grateful if, in responding to this debate, the Minister gave us his assessment of the extent to which the change of leadership in France is likely to make any difference to Turkey’s accession process.

Mike Freer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that Turkey could never accede to the EU while it continues to occupy a fellow EU state militarily?

Richard Ottaway: I am just coming to the issue of Cyprus, but let me make the point that when we produced the report, we looked at Turkey and did not go into the merits of the dispute in Cyprus.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the change of Government in France, which may indeed be relevant, although what Monsieur Hollande said in the election was that Turkish membership was not on the cards before the next election—that is, in five years’ time—so he put it off. However, are not the political elites in Germany, Austria and a number of other countries in Europe just as implacably opposed to Turkey joining?

Richard Ottaway: I think it is wrong to say that they are just as implacably opposed. Germany would like a looser relationship than full membership; Austria, I think, is just following in its wake at the moment. In truth, it is France that has led the fundamental opposition to Turkey.
	Let me turn in some detail to the dispute with Cyprus. Because of the long-running dispute, Cyprus continues to block Turkey’s EU accession process in many areas. When Cyprus became an EU member, an additional protocol was signed obliging Turkey to extend its customs union with the EU to Cyprus. However, Turkey has not implemented it, giving as the reason the EU’s continued isolation of northern Cyprus. Cyprus has just taken on the presidency of the EU Council, from 1 July, and in theory is responsible for presiding over accession negotiations with Turkey. However, Ankara has stated that its relations with the EU Council cannot continue as normal under the Cypriot presidency. As a result, we have a deadlock. EU Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon endeavoured to resolve the matter before Cyprus’s presidency, but failed. [Hon. Members: “EU Secretary-General?”] I beg the House’s pardon: UN Secretary-General.
	The Cyprus deadlock is certainly regrettable. We believe that the Government should think creatively about whether the international community could do anything differently that might help the two sides on the island to reach an accommodation. The alternative seems to be continued drift. The Foreign Office could, for example, support the use of prospective revenues from potential gas reserves off Cyprus to facilitate a settlement. However, Turkey is now threatening to boycott energy companies co-operating with the Greek Cypriots, and the situation is getting worse, not better. That has consequences for us all.

Simon Hughes: Having just been back to Cyprus and on to Turkey and having had conversations on this issue, I do not think we should be too pessimistic or fatalistic. Once the six-month presidency is over and the elections have taken place in Cyprus, there will still be enough good will in Turkey and the Turkish community—in the Turkish republic, so-called, of northern Cyprus—that if the Cypriot Government were willing, there could be significant steps forward next year, with the help and encouragement of our Government and, indeed, a solution. I think that is also the view of the UN Secretary-General’s special representative, Mr Downer, who was in London last month saying similar things and who will be back this month, I hope saying the same things again.

Richard Ottaway: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I share his assessment of the situation; I do not think that the process is dead. There was optimism that the question might have been resolved by the end of June, but given the need to work to such a tight deadline, that has proved impossible.

Robert Walter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, before we talk about blockages by Turkey on issues such as energy or the recognition of Cyprus, it is important to acknowledge that a blockage to better relations between NATO and the EU is being created when, every time the subject crops up in the EU, it is blocked by Cyprus, which is not prepared to welcome Turkey into EU operations?

Richard Ottaway: I note what my hon. Friend has said. The report is careful not to take sides in the dispute between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus, but I am sure that the House will have heard his point.
	I was talking about how the situation with regard to gas reserves off the coast of Cyprus was deteriorating, rather than improving. Turkey is a rising regional economic power within reach of about 70% of the world’s gas and oil reserves. It forms part of the southern gas corridor, which is critical to reducing the EU’s dependence on Russia as a supplier of gas. Frustratingly, the stalling of Turkey’s EU accession process seems to be losing the EU influence over Turkey’s energy policy decisions. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point.
	Cyprus is not the only major obstacle to Turkey’s EU accession. Let us turn to the sensitive matter of human rights. Shortcomings in the Turkish justice system are damaging the country’s international reputation. During our visit, we were struck by the country’s economic dynamism and international ambition, but we were taken aback by Turkish legal procedures and by the detention of large numbers of military figures, officials, elected politicians, journalists and activists. Such practices do not accord with the human rights standards that we fight for in the west. We were astonished to hear that, at the time of our inquiry, more journalists were in detention in Turkey than in China. The opaque nature of the system seemed to be part of the problem. Information about legal cases is hard to obtain, and we formed the view that the climate in Turkey was limiting freedom of expression and the media.
	Improvements are in progress, however, and we are grateful to the Turkish ambassador for keeping us up to date. Only on Monday, the Turkish Parliament passed an important judicial reform package, which should reduce pre-trial detention and lead to some actions against journalists being dropped. It is clear that the situation is fast moving, and the Foreign Office should help in practical ways to achieve further improvements. That should be done gently and sensitively, however, with quiet reminders that we could support Turkey’s inspirational role in its region more strongly if it improved its democratic and human rights practices.

Helen Grant: I acknowledge the package of legal reforms that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, but does he also accept that much more needs to be done in Turkey to prevent violence against women and girls, and to protect the rights of children?

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for the rights of women and children. The report does not focus specifically on that aspect, but I am sure that the House will have heard the point that she has raised.
	Turkey has committed to drawing up a new constitution, which presents a significant opportunity to advance reform. It could signal, at home and abroad, a decisive break with the country’s more authoritarian past, but reform is threatened by the continuing confrontation and conflict between Government and opposition, and between the Turkish state and the Kurdish PKK.
	There have been civilian casualties on both sides of the Kurdish conflict, and cross-border violence into and out of northern Iraq continues. However, there are grounds for optimism. I understand, for example, that Prime Minister Erdogan held a meeting at the weekend with the leading Kurdish activist and MP Leyla Zana. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us his assessment of the latest prospects for progress towards a settlement for Turkey’s Kurds.
	One issue that came up constantly during our visit was that of visas. Although there are considerable challenges, if we want a strategic partnership with Turkey, there are matters within our own gift to help achieve it. The UK’s visa regime for Turkish nationals is a big obstacle to UK-Turkey ties. It is commonly cited by businesses as inconvenient and humiliating. UK trade and academic exchanges suffer from the visa problem. We welcome the fact that the Foreign Office appears to recognise this and is exploring possibilities of easing the acquisition of UK entry visas for Turkish nationals.
	An encouraging development is Turkey’s initialling of its long-awaited readmission agreement with the EU, under which it will take back illegal migrants who enter the EU from its territory. We also welcome the Schengen countries’ decision to start a process towards the lifting of visa requirements for Turkish nationals, although this may throw an even stronger spotlight on the UK’s own visa regime. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister reported progress and gave us a sense of the feedback he has received on the new processes being trialled for Turkish applicants for British entry visas.
	There is much than can and should be done to improve Turkey’s reputation and profile in the UK, and vice versa. The role of the British Council is critical. We urge it to use its contacts with the young Turkish population to further their awareness of the UK. Rather than risk becoming just an English language-learning operation, the British Council needs to engage the two nations through the soft power of cultural diplomacy. In the year of the London Olympics, for example, the British Council should exploit the fact that Turkey is bidding for the 2020 games—something that we know the British Council is already taking forward.
	We remain concerned about the Foreign Office cut to the budget of the BBC World Service, and the service reductions that resulted from it. World Service Turkish radio broadcasts stopped in March 2011, with the loss of 450,000 listeners—a fifth of the World Service’s total audience in Turkey. On the brighter side, however, the World Service says that television and the internet are far more important. About 45% of the Turkish population has access to the internet, and the World Service’s online Turkey service is accessed by almost 500,000 unique users each week.
	My Committee also welcomed the increase in the size of the Foreign Office’s diplomatic presence in Turkey. Of the 14 additional staff that the Turkey network is gaining, three are UK based, and they will be required to speak Turkish. This will send a strong signal that this Government are serious about developing strong links with Turkey, although we remain concerned about the deployment of language skills in the embassy generally.
	The future shape and direction of the Arab region during a period of huge volatility is hard to predict. We must remain committed to supporting Turkey and its rapidly maturing democracy. We must make its EU accession a top priority and make the most of the opportunities it offers as a strategic partner of growing importance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Will Members please resume their seats? We will now start a 12-minute limit, with the usual injury time of one minute for up to two interventions.

Mike Gapes: The Chairman of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), made it clear that during our visit to Turkey we were impressed by the progress it had made in recent years, not just economically but in dealing with long-standing issues of human rights and internal democracy, many of which persist. We were, however, concerned about the legal system, the long delays in the bringing of people to trial, and the continuing difficulties of many people in the Kurdish community.
	It is clear that there is still a long way to go before Turkey meets the standards required to join the European Union. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and others pointed out, fundamental difficulties will remain for as long as certain EU countries take their current attitude to Turkey’s potential membership. According to an opinion poll which is quoted in the report, only 35% of the Turkish population now believe that their country will become a member of the EU.
	That presents us with a fundamental challenge, because Turkey is growing rapidly, both in terms of its economic growth of 7%, 8% or 9% per annum and in terms of its political and regional influence. Syria has already been mentioned, but Turkey also has borders with Iran, Iraq and other countries. Geographically, it should be a strong partner, and potentially—this is the position of both the Government and the Opposition—a member of the European Union.

Bob Stewart: Turkey has been a strong partner in NATO and a steadfast friend of this country and the rest of NATO for many years. I share the hon. Gentleman’s wish that we get it into the European Union as soon as possible.

Mike Gapes: I shall say something about NATO in a moment.
	The position taken by the countries in the EU that are resisting Turkey’s application is, of course, easier for them to take because of continuing difficulties over the resolution of the conflict involving Cyprus. I am disappointed that, although the Greek Cypriots elected
	a President who was, unlike his predecessor, committed to this process and although the Turkish Government have not opposed it, there has been no resolution. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), my friend from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, said earlier that the position could be viewed more optimistically in the light of Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of Ministers. I hope so, but I myself am not very optimistic, because I think that some of the deep-seated issues are still not easy to resolve regardless of whether Cyprus has the presidency.
	We need to look to the future imaginatively. Who knows what the current debates about the future architecture of the European Union and the inner core of the eurozone and the other developments will lead to? It is possible that in five, seven or 10 years’ time, we shall be looking at a completely different structure of European foreign policy and political relations. If that proves so, it is tragic that people in this country should want Turkey to join the European Union while a substantial number of Government Members want the UK to leave it. It seems perverse to want Turkey to be in the EU while we ourselves want to leave it. That revolving-door approach to international relations strikes me as totally illogical and absurd—

Andrew Rosindell: rose—

Mike Gapes: But perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain it to me.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Turkey is a proud nation, and being part of the European family does not necessarily mean having to be part of a European political union, so we should give the Turkish people impartial advice rather than keep pushing them in only one direction?

Mike Gapes: I am sure Turkey receives lots of advice, both partial and impartial, from lots of different quarters. It is my understanding that the position of the hon. Gentleman’s Government is the same as that of my party’s last Government, which is to support Turkey’s membership of the EU. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a different view, however, and he can explain that when he speaks, if he catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Andrew Rosindell: The Turkish people should make that decision, and we should not hoodwink them into believing they have to join the EU to be part of the family of European nations. Switzerland and Norway manage perfectly successfully without being in the EU.

Mike Gapes: Switzerland and Norway are smaller countries than Turkey. The Turkish people are very wise and they will make their own decisions in their own national interests, but it is helpful of us to say that it is in the UK’s interests for Turkey to be part of an enlarged EU, and that that will promote democracy and stability as well as our influence throughout a very difficult part of the world.

Denis MacShane: Ad interim, having the status of a Switzerland or a Norway would be useful. Switzerland is a member of Schengen, and I think Turkey would
	love to join Schengen; and Norway implements more EU directives than we do, so if Turkey were to follow the Norwegian course, it would be far more a part of the EU than the UK is.

Mike Gapes: I agree.
	Turkey has an important regional role to play. There are currently some interesting developments in relations between the Kurdish regional Government in Iraq and Turkey. There is growing economic investment from Turkey in infrastructure and other projects in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The Iraqi-Kurdish community wants to have good relations with Turkey because there is a Kurdish community within Turkey. The role of the terrorist organisation, the PKK, greatly complicates the situation, of course, but it is also interesting that relations have improved in recent years despite the PKK’s activities. Those of us who want a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq should recognise that Turkey has an important role to play in bringing that about. As the Kurdish region in Iraq exports its oil and gas via Turkey and has greater economic ties with Turkey, we must do all we can to ensure that that is not perceived in Baghdad as somehow leading to a division or break-up of Iraq. This is a very sensitive issue because there are also Kurdish minorities in Syria and Iran, as well as a large Kurdish community within Turkey.
	The Turkish Government have shown great restraint so far in the face of terrible unwarranted military action by Syrian Government forces, including the shelling of refugees in Turkey and the shooting down of aircraft. Such actions are totally unacceptable and have rightly been condemned. Turkey would be justified in taking much stronger action than it has taken so far. The fact that it has not done so reflects its wish not to be drawn militarily into what might be a civil war in Syria, but the time will come when Turkey has to intervene. If the number of refugees continues to rise and the conflict within Syria spills over and presents security problems for Turkey, then Turkey might deem it necessary to act, in which case it will have to be shown solidarity and support by the international community. I hope that will occur not through a unilateral action but through discussion within NATO and the North Atlantic Council. If necessary, and if the Assad regime continues to behave provocatively and outrageously, we should be prepared to invoke article 5 of NATO’s charter to support Turkey and offer it our solidarity if it feels it wants that international umbrella of legitimacy and support in taking action to defend itself.
	I hope that Turkey will continue to play a constructive role in assisting peace and security in the region. Interestingly, the Government’s response did not refer to one of the conclusions in our report, paragraph 129, which makes it clear that good relations between Turkey and Israel are in the UK’s interests. Perhaps the Government did not respond to that paragraph because we did not recommend anything, but I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his response and set out the Government’s position.
	Unfortunately, Turkey’s relations with Israel have deteriorated significantly, mainly because of the Mavi Marmara incident and its mishandling by the Netanyahu Government. We had conversations in Turkey about that and the Turkish Government and their representatives felt that a proper apology was not given either when the
	incident happened or afterwards, even though they were led to believe that there would be a full apology. That would have led to the restoration of improved relations, which did not happen.
	In conclusion, I want to mention the so-called Turkish model and its influence in the region. Our report suggests than rather than talking about Turkey as a model for the Arab world and the Arab spring, we should talk about it more as an inspiration. Reference was made to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi in Egypt. It is significant that when Prime Minister Erdogan visited Egypt last year, there were initially huge crowds of Muslim Brotherhood people at the airport as well as demonstrations of support for him. After he said that they should be moving towards not an Islamic state but a secular state, such as that in Turkey, led by a Muslim party, there were very few people to greet him and praise him when he left the country. The message did not go down very well with some of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have now won the presidential election. It will be interesting to see how the development of one form of Islamic-led democracy influences another country that has just elected a Muslim Brotherhood president.
	Turkey is an important player in its region and a growing power economically in the world. Turkey gives us an ally with whom we should be working in NATO and at some point, I hope, in an enlarged European Union.

Robert Walter: I congratulate Ministers on the Treasury Bench on singling out the topic of UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s foreign policy when considering the estimates for the Foreign Office.
	Turkey is a delightful country. I think you know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I think you have been there on a number of occasions. I was reminded of it only yesterday when I got into a taxi in Belfast with a number of colleagues. The taxi driver asked where we were going for our holidays and then told us that he was going back to the same hotel, in the same town in Turkey, as he had for the past 19 years. He and the hotel owner were on such good terms that he no longer had to pay for the hotel room, and just for his flights; I do not know how much Guinness he drank when he got there. I, too, shall spend time in Turkey over the summer recess. As many colleagues know, my wife is Turkish, but my interest in and commitment to supporting Turkey’s role in European institutions long predates my marriage.
	Turkey is a fascinating country, and there are similarities with our own history. We lost an empire; Turkey lost its empire about 50 years before we lost ours. Turkey’s greatest area of influence, political, economic and cultural, is in the former Ottoman empire, and we ignore that at our peril. Conservative estimates suggest that the EU neighbourhood policy costs in the order of €1.4 billion a year. When we add the cost of the new EU External Action Service, we can see that the EU spends an awful lot of money on our neighbourhood. Our political and economic effectiveness, however, is dwarfed by Turkish foreign policy in that very same neighbourhood.
	A key argument to embrace Turkey and its foreign policy is our joint approach to our common neighbourhood; most of Europe’s neighbourhood was, in fact, part of
	the Ottoman empire. In areas of conflict and of post-conflict reconstruction, Europe has benefited from Turkey’s influence. In the Balkans, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, Turkish influence is not to be underestimated, and we should recognise that. In the Maghreb—the countries of the Arab spring—Turkey was the first back in, in terms of influence, and it had influence that predated us in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. In the middle east, Turkey’s influence on its near neighbours—Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Syria—is something on which we should capitalise, and which we should not ignore.
	It is not just in areas of conflict or post-conflict that Turkey has influence; it has economic influence in the Balkans, the Maghreb and the middle east, as well as the Caucasus and central Asia, particularly the Turkic-speaking nations of central Asia. Europe’s neighbourhood is Turkey’s neighbourhood. The Ottoman empire, to which I referred, significantly predated the British empire. In the middle ages, it dislodged Byzantium. By the mid-19th century, it was in serious decline. It was Tsar Nicholas I of Russia who coined the phrase that Turkey was the “sick man of Europe”. He thought that Britain and France would stand by while he took control of the Crimea, but he was mistaken. We reacted, not because we wanted to prolong the rule of the Ottoman empire but because we wanted to limit Russian influence, which has very much been part of our foreign policy ever since.
	The final demise came in world war one, when Turkey backed the wrong side. The treaty of Sèvres in 1920 effectively destroyed the unity of the Turkish state and partitioned the Ottoman empire between the allied powers. Many educated Turks—and this is key to modern Turkey—were totally dissatisfied with that. The war of independence, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who we now know as Ataturk, the name given to him by the Turkish Parliament, resulted in the 1923 treaty of Lausanne and the modern Turkish state.
	Ataturk is somebody we should focus on. He was the man who wanted to create Turkey and reinforce it as a modern European state, a secular state. In the early years he set about banning the fez and the turban, and later the veil and the headscarf, all the paraphernalia of a religious state. Arabic script was banned and replaced by a Latin alphabet. Religious schools were outlawed. Women were given equal rights and universal suffrage. Islamic law was replaced by a civil code based on the Swiss model and a penal code based on the Italian model. This is the basis of modern Turkey.
	The question which I know some of our colleagues in Germany and France still ask is, “Is Turkey a European country? Should it be a member of the EU?” We have already heard that it is a member of NATO, a founder member of the OECD, a member of the Council of Europe and a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It was an associate member of the Western European Union, and it participates in European Union battle groups, EU military operations and is also a participant in the European Court.
	Turkey applied to join the European Union in 1963. That was also the year of the first French veto against our membership, but we joined eventually in 1973 and Turkey is still trying to join. In 1995 the customs union was concluded with the European Union, and 59% of Turkey’s exports go to the European Union—some 10% to Germany and 6% each to France, Italy and the United Kingdom. It is the fastest growing economy in
	Europe. It grew by 9% in 2010 and by 8.5% in 2011. Growth is slowing this year, but Turkey is still the fastest growing economy in Europe.
	Politically and economically, Turkey brings so much to the table that we delay her membership at our peril. There are those who say that Europe is a Christian club and Turkey is a Muslim country. I suspect that Turkey would not have succeeded in joining the Holy Roman empire, but this is the modern Europe. It is a place for all cultures and we should not be discriminating on the basis of the predominant religion in that country. Our own nation is a good example of that, as are many others. European Union membership for Turkey is not without its problems, but Turkish membership is in our interest economically, politically and strategically. Turkey has always been a strong ally of Europe and should be recognised as such today. Europe should recognise her contribution and grant her membership as soon as possible.

Ann Clwyd: I, too, have a taxi story, following the one from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). My taxi story started in Diyarbakir in the south-east of Turkey some years ago, when I was going to the very south-east of the country to look at the Ilusu dam area and the flooding of Batman and other areas which are of historic importance to Turkey and particularly to the Kurds. My taxi driver said to me, “I’ve sold my only cow.” I looked at him in amazement and he said, “To buy a satellite dish.” At that time he could see television programmes only in the Turkish language, and he wanted to see programmes in the Kurdish language. Things have moved on quite a bit since then,
	I am pleased to say. I have a long association with Turkey and want to see it in the European Union, and I can say strongly that this country is a friend of Turkey and also wants to see it in the European Union.
	My friend the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave a comprehensive account of the areas the Committee has looked at and the recommendations it has made. I still have many concerns about human rights in Turkey. When I chaired the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s committee on the human rights of parliamentarians —you know it well, Mr Deputy Speaker—which is based in Geneva, we always had delegations from Turkey at its conferences twice a year because of complaints about the way members of the Turkish Parliament were being treated.
	I see myself as a critic of Turkey and also a friend. When it needs a pat on the back, I am pleased to do so, but I will also kick it when that is necessary to get some action on human rights. There have been great changes in Turkey, and I have to say that the AK party Government have contributed much towards that. The change has not been as fast as some of us would like it to be, but nevertheless there has been considerable progress on human rights.
	I still have concerns about the treatment of the Kurds in the south-east of the country, to which my friend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) also referred.
	Few people have visited the south-east and seen for themselves where the majority of Turkey’s Kurdish population live and the strong feelings they have about the use of their own language. They want the right to be able to speak in Kurdish whenever they want to do so. Of course, in the past that was very difficult and many have been put in prison for using Kurdish, which the Turkish Government have very strong views about.
	I want to talk briefly about a friend of mine, Leyla Zana. I first met her nearly 20 years ago when I visited her in prison in Ankara. She had been a member of the Turkish Parliament, one of the first Kurds to be elected to it, and when she was sworn in she took her oath in Kurdish and wore Kurdish colours in her hair. It was not long before she found herself in prison. She was put in jail for 10 years because it was believed that she was strongly associated with the PKK. Of course, some of the PKK’s aims include language rights for the Kurds. I went to see her in jail and took her a birthday card, because it was her birthday. I had written the card in Welsh, which the Turkish authorities of course could not make out, and so was able to deliver it and wish her a happy birthday. The prison governor allowed me to stay with her for about an hour and a half, and afterwards he said to me, “You know, she shouldn’t be here.” I knew that she should not have been there.
	Unfortunately, in the past few weeks Leyla Zana has been sentenced to another 10 years in jail, but because she is a member of parliament she has immunity, but there is no certainty that that immunity will remain. There are concerns that she could still face another 10 years in jail, which would be a disgrace. It is interesting that in the past few days Prime Minister Erdogan met Leyla Zana and they had a discussion, and she made some comments after it. The Prime Minister told journalists that it had gone very well and I believe that it was very productive. After the meeting, Leyla Zana spoke to the press and called on the Government to restart talks with militants, meaning the PKK. It is important that those talks take place. There have been awful incidents on both sides, and many people on both sides of the argument have died. Many in the military have been killed, but PKK personnel and innocent civilians have, too.
	Ms Zana said that security-based policies had not worked, and she made the suggestion, anathema to many Turks, that Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader serving a life sentence, could be transferred to house arrest. She also praised the Prime Minister for meeting her, saying:
	“He showed his sincerity on the need to open channels of dialogue. When I decided to meet with him, I based it on my reasoning, political experience and insight.”
	Their meeting was dismissed by the PKK, which said:
	“They have entered into a military-solution process. The AKP government lost the war it staged against the Kurds and Kurdish freedom movement in the last year.”
	Interestingly, however, Leyla Zana could take over as leader of the PKK, and, although it is described as a terrorist organisation, we in this House all know how many times we have described organisations as terrorist and then sat down to talk with them. Such talks are beginning to take place, and I commend the Turkish Government on initiating that dialogue, which I very much hope will continue.
	I am concerned also about the treatment of journalists in Turkey, as I know our Government are, and in our report we made several comments on that, stating:
	“We recommend that the FCO should suggest that the Turkish government encourage prosecutors and judges to exercise restraint in the use of arrest and pre-trial detention, pending more thorough-going reform of the justice system.”
	When I was in Istanbul I met journalists and journalist associations. They are afraid of saying anything that is sensitive to the Turkish Government, and too many of them are in jail. Our Government have welcomed recent steps to address those issues, because freedom of expression is a very necessary freedom, which any potential EU member must support, but Turkey need not be as sensitive as it is, because it has made substantial progress.
	Indeed, I have paid tribute to Turkey for that progress over the years, because my first visit to the country took place when the military were in charge. I went on behalf of Amnesty International to a trial at a prison in Istanbul, where people who were the equivalent of members of CND were on trial, and that was a horrible time in Turkey’s history. Things are changing, however, and with a bit more initiative they will improve even faster.
	Some time ago, in talks with the Foreign Office, I suggested that we invite Turkish MPs to this country to see bilingualism in practice and to show them that it does not mean separation. We now have bilingualism in Wales, and it was hard fought-for, but the Turks could learn a little from the process. All the Turkish MPs whom I have met have seemed very keen on the idea of coming to see how bilingualism works in practice, and, if they were convinced of it, the Kurdish problem in Turkey could be solved.

Rory Stewart: One of the reasons why Turkey is such an exciting subject is that it is an exemplar not just for the whole middle east, but for British foreign policy. Turkey is a strange place for us. We have a huge great embassy—now the consulate general—in Istanbul, and it would impress hon. Members. It is more magnificent than this Chamber and even than the other place, with wooden parquet floors, beautiful marble courtyards.
	Only 20 years ago, that all seemed a bit out of date and out of proportion. For all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) pointed out, the embassy was conceived when the Ottoman empire was at its height and when Lord Palmerston, based in this House, was charging around frenetically, shelling the coast of what was then part of the Ottoman empire to seize Acre and play incredibly complicated games with Russia and France—and, indeed, Afghanistan and Persia on the Turkish borders.
	By a decade ago, we could see that the Foreign Office had almost given up, and that is a real parable in what goes wrong in long-term British foreign policy planning. Ten years ago, the desk officer for Turkey, in London, said very confidently that there was absolutely no point in the Islamic department of the Foreign Office doing Islamic communication or anything in Turkey because in 2001 we were absolutely confident that Turkey was a secular state and that in Turkey there was absolutely no interest in Islam. Almost immediately after the desk
	officer made that comment, a Government with strong conservative Muslim roots, and a leadership with a history of political Islam, were elected to office in Turkey.
	Even two years ago, the situation in our embassy in Turkey was still one of pretty extreme crisis. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has pointed out, we were shifting towards the system that eventually came about, involving the closing down of the BBC Turkish service and the British Council in Turkey hiding at the back of a large shopping mall with almost no evidence of Britain on display. It has an energetic, dynamic and dedicated Turkish staff who, understandably, struggle to communicate British culture to a Turkish audience, given that a significant number of them have never visited the United Kingdom.
	As the report makes clear—last year the Foreign Office gave us the figures—we have 25 extensive Turkish speakers in the British diplomatic network, of whom exactly one was in the embassy in Turkey. That is the top level of Turkish language. We also had 23 operational Turkish speakers—and again, exactly one of them was to be found in Turkey. That is comparable with having 46 fast-jet pilots trained at great expense to the UK taxpayer and only two of them flying aeroplanes.
	In addition, the focus has been taken from political work towards other forms of work. Why does that matter? It matters for all the reasons on which others in the Chamber have so eloquently held forth. Turkey is now a major exemplar for the region, a place of interest and importance to the United Kingdom and somewhere we ought to be able to exercise some influence.
	Politically, of course, Turkey represents something that confounded our fears and predictions. Many commentators, looking at Turkey in 2001, were terrified, just as we were terrified about Islamic movements in Egypt, by the possibility of some kind of Islamist movement in Turkey which reliable commentators described in 2001 and 2002 as some form of new Taliban or even new al-Qaeda. Indeed, that was swept up by secular voices in Turkey, that focused on the worst-case scenario in terms of what the AKP would be. The reality is that those fears were not confirmed; in fact, that change is perhaps the strongest example worldwide of a democratic transition from a military Government—considerably more impressive even than the transition achieved in Indonesia.
	As others have so eloquently pointed out, on the economic side the Turkish economy, in per capita GDP terms, is now larger than that of Bulgaria or Romania. It has grown considerably faster in the past decade, and the Istanbul littoral—the 20 million people around Istanbul—have a GDP per capita larger than that of Poland.
	As regards the AKP’s conduct of foreign affairs, despite the opposition party complaining that it would be an unruly, destabilising force, we have found that although it has taken an independent policy on Israel and an unexpected policy on Syria and on Iran, it has not proved to be a dangerous force in the region at all. In fact, in Libya the AKP has proved to be an extraordinary example in being more generous and flexible than many other NATO members, and it has got considerably more credit from the Libyan people as a result.
	Of course, this does not mean that everything is sunny in Turkey. As many people have pointed out, there are serious problems. From a foreign policy point
	of view, there is no point in our treating Turkey as though it were a superpower, because it remains a middle-ranking power. We cannot vest in it all responsibility for the middle east. We cannot imagine that it has the key to the solution in Afghanistan or in Syria. Despite Turkey’s extraordinary development over the past 30 years, there remains a significant gap in terms of human, financial and institutional capital that prevents it from occupying that kind of role. Economically, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, there are considerable problems in eastern Turkey, where people have a GDP per capita that is one sixth that of people in Istanbul; in other words, they often have per capita incomes of about $4,000 to $5,000 a year. Turkey is not a wealthy country.
	In terms of politics, we need seriously to consider the fact that despite the great advances and the extraordinary tightrope action of the AKP Government in the way that they improvised with the constitution, negotiated challenges with the judiciary, and took certain moves that were on the risky side, we have ended up—despite all the progress made with the military—with the scandal of what is happening with the terror laws. Turkey should, and can, be an example to the region, but that ought not to involve locking up peaceful dissidents, journalists and academics. That is not a necessary part of a counter-terrorism policy.

Stephen Phillips: I think that 10% or more of the cases in the European Court of Human Rights emanate from Turkey. My hon. Friend and others have spoken about the steps that Turkey has managed to take in improving human rights. Will he tell the House what further measures he thinks necessary? The Minister could then tell us what steps the Government are taking to encourage those measures.

Rory Stewart: The central element is to focus on making sure—we in Britain have experienced this and people have gone through it in Spain—that the terror laws are not applied to peaceful protesters such as academics and journalists but targeted at people who are genuinely involved in armed struggle. Perhaps Britain, which has built up a good relationship with Turkey through taking a friendly attitude towards EU accession, has more leverage over that issue than countries such as France.
	What can Britain do, though? The core question is not “Whither Turkey?” but “Whither Britain in Turkey?” What is the Foreign Office supposed to do? What sort of reforms are we supposed to introduce? How are we supposed to change our attitude towards the country to get more out of the relationship? The first thing we need to do is very difficult. It is all very well the Foreign Office saying that it has designated more speaker slots in Turkey, but the unfortunate reality is that if a slot has been designated for a Turkish speaker, there is no way of compelling anyone to fill it. Therefore, across the diplomatic network we have a number of slots designated for Arabic speakers or Turkish speakers that remain unfilled. If we are serious about making sure that out of 25 Turkish speakers a quarter, say, are in Turkey, we have to change the human resources procedures of the Foreign Office. We have to move from a situation where
	everybody is allowed to bid for posts towards one in which a manager can tell people that they should be going to Turkey given that the taxpayer has invested considerably in training them in the language.
	That also necessitates difficult HR changes to the core competency framework that governs promotion within the Foreign Office. Currently, the second secretary for political affairs at the embassy in Ankara does not have a direct interest in continuing in political work. Despite good sounds coming from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, saying that political work is increasingly important, and despite all the good messages about the diplomatic excellence initiative, the brutal reality remains that one’s career in the Foreign Office is determined by management expertise.
	All the incentives are driving ambitious young people out of political work and into getting management experience. I can name two cases in the diplomatic network in Turkey of people who have chosen to go into UK Trade and Investment management roles because they do not believe that they will be promoted on the basis of political roles. The core competency framework, which governs promotion, does not take into account linguistic expertise or deep country knowledge in any way; it measures people purely—and is only allowed to measure people—on the basis of their management skills. That must be changed if we are fundamentally to change the culture of the Foreign Office. It is not enough for us to say that these things matter; we must promote people on the basis of them.
	To deepen this further, we might need to change the criteria on which people are rewarded. We should have indicators of how many Turks, for example, somebody in the embassy meets. We should have indicators of how often they get outside Ankara and Istanbul to remote areas of the country. That should be part of the criteria for their assessment and promotion.
	Finally, on commercial opportunities and UKTI, it is all very well our saying that we want to double UK trade and investment with Turkey, but how is that going to happen? Where are the people and where is the drive? It is difficult to make that happen. Italy is currently outperforming us twofold in Turkey—Italian trade to Turkey is nearly twice that of British. Sixteen flights a day go from Italy to Turkey, almost all of them from Milan. Big Italian infrastructure companies are building roads and getting involved in dams, and small and medium-sized Italian companies are outperforming British small and medium-sized enterprises on the ground.
	I propose, modestly, that it might be worth looking at seconding 25-year-olds from major UK financial and consultancy companies, with proper incentive structures and targets, to try to achieve the difficult aim of boosting UK trade and investment. I do not want to pick out a particular company, but I would imagine that McKinsey would be quite happy to second somebody at the age of 25 to UKTI for two or three years, with a decent incentive structure, to see whether they could meet those targets.
	All this is necessary because Turkey matters. It matters to Britain, and Britain’s leverage in Turkey is still potentially large. If we introduced those kinds of reforms in Turkey and other countries, we could achieve something extraordinary. The danger is that, having been worried 20 years ago that the great palace on a hill that we occupy was too large for Turkey and that Britain’s
	interests were elsewhere, we run the risk of being that other great building in Istanbul, which is of course the great representation of Venice—a palace even larger than ours, stuck up on the hill. That now seems out of date for a different reason—because Turkey is too big for Venice. Let us make sure that that does not happen to us.

Denis MacShane: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I loved his idea that diplomats should get out and walk across the dusty plains of Anatolia. Perhaps one of them might write a book about such an excursion or go off and become a political commissioner, giving out political instruction and wisdom to others. I concur with his lament about foreign languages. It is terribly heartening to hear a Conservative Member say that a language other than English is spoken in the world. He spoke about the notion that promotion in the Foreign Office should depend on linguistic ability. Heaven forfend that that should be applied to Ministers. He was right to be lyrical.
	I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s view that nothing had happened in Turkey until the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, made its visit. I recall a most distinguished diplomat, Sir Peter Westmacott, who is now our representative in the United States, spending a great deal of time acting, with great linguistic ability, as the most effective bridge between any European state or any NATO member state and the Turks during his time in office there. I recall him working with Mr Erdogan and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had invested an enormous amount of time cajoling, persuading, bullying, nudging—all the things that he was rather good at—his fellow European leaders to accept the opening of full negotiations with Turkey. That was touch and go. When I was Europe Minister, I remember being there right through to 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning as Mr Blair, Mr Erdogan and Sir Peter formed a troika that got Turkey to the start of discussions with the European Union.
	I differ somewhat from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), a distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who seemed to finger France as the main problem. It was General de Gaulle who, in 1963, insisted that the European Economic Community should open a relationship with Turkey. He thought that the Europe that he dreamed of—the “Europe des patries”, as he called it—would have to be as large as possible and that to exclude a great, important and historic state such as Turkey simply did not make sense. On the whole, French political leaders have been quite good friends of Turkey from that moment on. President Chirac certainly supported Turkish admission, and the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard wrote an excellent book two or three years ago—in French, and sadly it is not available in English, although perhaps it is in Turkish—on the need for Turkey to join the EU and why France should support that.
	President Sarkozy pandered to the part of the electorate that exists in all our countries that sees anything foreign as a bad thing. He pandered to the idea that any immigrants coming to France were a bad thing and that, as long as the gates of a nation are shut to
	incomers, that country will somehow be strong again. I am glad that in the presidential election President Hollande rejected such hostility to immigration and the idea that there is a need to place a cap on the number of immigrants coming into France. As we know, President Sarkozy’s reactionary anti-immigrant language was defeated.
	I have been going to Turkey for nearly 30 years, first to small left-wing trade union meetings in the 1970s and then to the trial of Orhan Pamuk in 2005, when I was pushed to the ground and kicked by a few nasty right wingers. I keep going there as often as I can, and after each trip I come back more impressed but more perplexed. I am more impressed by the vitality and excitement—it really is one of the most exciting countries in the world to visit—but more perplexed by my failure to work out how the Rubik’s cube of Turkey is put together. I do not speak Turkish, and I do not think I am going to learn that language.
	On one level Turkey is all the things that hon. Members have said it is. It is dynamic and growth-focused, and it has brought an enormous number of people into middle-class prosperity. Istanbul has some of the youngest and most exuberant art in the world. The last time I was there, I had dinner with Orhan Pamuk, who had won the Nobel prize and was threatened with death by Turkish nationalists and imprisonment by Turkish judges. We went to a restaurant on the Bosphorus and he was accompanied by a bodyguard. He was stopped by somebody and had a little chat. I asked, “Who was that?” He said, “Oh, that was the state attorney-general, who a couple of years ago was trying to put me in prison permanently. He said to me, ‘Orhan, you’re down to one bodyguard, are you? You see, we are making progress.’” I think that is true.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report is absolutely first-rate, and I commend its detail and thoroughness and the work of the Committee’s Chairman and members. I have some brief points to make about it. We need to reconsider our visa regime. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border talked about people learning Turkish and Turks getting to know Britain. It is a travesty that it was easier to visit the Soviet Union in the old days than it is for many Turks to get a visa to come to the United Kingdom. We have to grow up—we cannot say that we are open for business and be closed to foreigners. I am sorry if that language does not sit well, but it is the truth.
	On page Ev 80 of the evidence published in the Committee’s report, Migration Watch UK states:
	“The Poles are Catholics of European heritage…the bulk of Turkish immigrants in this country, and elsewhere in Europe, are poorer, less educated Muslims of Middle Eastern heritage who form the majority of Turkey’s population.”
	That is the evidence presented by this wretched organisation, Migration Watch UK, to the Committee. One hundred years ago, we passed the Status of Aliens Act 1914, using exactly the same argument about Jews coming from the poorer parts of eastern Europe. Until we grow up and stop the Islamophobic dislike of people from outside Britain coming here, we will not have the influence we need.

Stewart Jackson: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently conflates two totally separate issues: first, his value judgment of the language used in the French elections; and secondly, the fact that the French legislature
	and courts made a value judgment on the systematic denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915. That is a separate issue and still going through the French courts. He should not conflate the electioneering language with an issue of principle.

Denis MacShane: The electioneering language from then President Sarkozy and right-wing politicians in France was simply hostile to Turkey, as it is in Germany and Austria. And believe me, if we want to list the politicians, newspapers and political cultures that are hostile to Turkey, we should look across the Rhine rather than in Paris. I wrote an article in Le Monde, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman, condemning the absurd notion that the French Parliament would decide what was genocide and what was not. That is a matter for history, not politicians.
	We need to ask one or two serious questions of Turkey. It demands absolute solidarity, which personally I give, in its fight against the PKK and its wretched killer terrorist leader, Ocalan, but when exactly the same type of organisation, Hamas, insists on its right to kill Jews and Israelis and to blow up people in the region, and the Israelis take the necessary action to protect their state from Hamas, Mr Erdogan supports Hamas while demanding condemnation of the PKK. Turkey must be asked to support not only friendly relations 360° around the compass, as its Foreign Minister said, but absolute geopolitical consistency. If we are to support Turkey’s campaign, action and language against the PKK, Turkey must ask itself why it supports terrorist organisations elsewhere in the region.
	Mention has been made of Cyprus. The European Council first committed itself to opening trade links with northern Cyprus but then reneged. That said, Turkey does not need to maintain two full military divisions of 35,000 men stationed in the tiny area of northern Cyprus. It can withdraw any number of them, while still leaving an adequate security presence, and show to the world it is looking for a new relationship with Cyprus. Turkish-Cypriot relations are bitter and poisonous. I do not agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said he thought, after a visit there, that it would all get better next year. There needs to be a huge sea change on both sides. My own view is that in any of these conflicts, the bigger, the more powerful and the more dominant nation—and, in 1974, the invading nation—should be the one to find the confidence to come to a better accord with the people it cannot find a solution even to talk to.

Daniel Kawczynski: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Cyprus. Will he acknowledge that Turkey has done an awful lot in recent years to improve relations with Greece, and will he join me in expressing our satisfaction at that?

Denis MacShane: Absolutely. Turkish foreign policy is innovative, flexible and open. We remember President Gul’s state visit to London last year or perhaps 18 months ago. It was an important triumph, and he is a very distinguished statesman. There are many, many highly competent Turkish diplomats and business men,
	and the stronger the relations, the better, particularly with Greece. I agree strongly with that, but Greece spends 50% more of its GDP on defence than we or the Turks do. Greece has imported more weapons in the past 10 years than Israel. Why? Because Turkey will still not give an unqualified security guarantee to all the territory of Greece. There are overflights and rows on this and that—not a full-scale invasion—but I cannot meet a Greek who, when I say, “Why are you spending all this money on defence? You’re not going to go to war with Turkey,” does not shiver and shudder. Turkey could help to stabilise the Greek economy by signing a total non-aggression pact with Greece, saying that it will respect all Greek property and territorial frontiers.
	Although Turkey opened its frontiers with Syria—now, however, it finds itself in the midst of the Syrian storm—it refuses to open its frontiers with Armenia because of the Nagorno-Karabakh situation and its relationship with the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan. Again, I can half understand that, but closed frontiers are the curse of all modern economic development and political advances.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to the problem of journalists, specifically Leyla Zana. As we speak, 205 people are on trial near Istanbul. The publisher Ragip Zarakolu, who was first condemned by the Turkish judicial system in 1971 for having secret links with Amnesty International, is again standing trial. That is not necessarily the Turkish Government’s fault; rather, the Turkish judicial system needs to rethink. If we want to increase parliamentary links, Labour Members should explain to the CHP—the nominally social democratic party—that Turkey’s penal code, with its legendary clause 301, which makes it a crime to insult the Turkish nation and gives the judicial system and prosecutors carte blanche to arrest and lock up anybody they want, is a real problem.
	Those are the slight questions that I have, based on decades of visiting Turkey. I would like Britain to make a special effort on Turkey. The Minister is committed to doing so, but he is hamstrung by two great problems, the first of which is the attitude of the Home Office and its hostility to foreigners coming in to Britain. The other great difficulty is that, although we proclaim ourselves across the House to be the champions of Turkey joining the European Union, the rest of Europe listens to the Prime Minister talking about referendums and saying there is no terror for Britain outside the EU. The rest of Europe therefore thinks that we are on the way out. Turkey wants to come in—we may be on the way out. We need to rethink our approach to the European Union, but I am not sure that that will happen on this Government’s watch.

Stephen Gilbert: I always think myself unlucky to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in foreign affairs debates. To follow him and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is downright unfair. Both have displayed huge personal knowledge and experience of the issues the House is debating, and made incisive comments. I agreed with much of what both colleagues said. My perhaps more modest and limited remarks may serve as an opportunity for other colleagues to shine later.
	I want to join those who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on its excellent report, the significant amount of work that clearly went into it, and the understanding that he and his colleagues from across the House brought to the issue in informing Government policy on it. I was struck by his saying that Turkey is at the crossroads of the old world. To its north-west, Turkey sees Europe, which is experiencing difficult times economically, has an increasingly ageing population and, some would say, is experiencing a period of stagnation. To its south-east is the boom of the Arab spring—dynamic countries with much younger populations who are trying to thrust forward and create a destiny for themselves with self-determination. In the north-east, of course, Turkey has Russia on its periphery, with all the challenges and concerns that brings. Turkey operates in quite a complex security environment. It is that aspect of our strategic relationship that I would like to dwell on for a few minutes.
	The whole House will want to acknowledge the contribution that Turkey has made to ISAF—the international security assistance force—in Afghanistan. At one point during operations there Turkey was the third largest force contributor. Turkey is responsible for the security of Kabul and has about 1,300 service personnel deployed there. That is Turkey’s active engagement on the ground in Afghanistan, but it is also a key ally for the United Kingdom in maintaining the air bridge, so that we can get our men and matériel into Afghanistan, to keep them effectively supplied to prosecute the operation there. When I had the great privilege of visiting Afghanistan and talking to some of the British and other international forces on operation there, it was clear that the relationship among all the NATO allies was effective on the ground. In particular, the people in the RAF I spoke to valued the co-operation of the Turkish authorities in maintaining the air bridge so effectively.
	Equally, Turkey is a major contributor to the European Union force operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have to recognise and applaud Turkey for that. It is one of only two non-EU nations to be engaged in that level of activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border referred earlier to the extent of Turkish involvement in the Libyan campaign. I am sure that the whole House will also want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Turkish authorities for their courageous and far-sighted decision to support NATO operations in that theatre.
	We therefore already have strong and cohesive security links with Turkey, and it is right that the report sets out ways in which we and the Foreign Office can build on them. In particular, when we look to the medium term and the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons—by the Iranian regime, for instance—we see a ready willingness in Turkey to work with the United States, us and other countries to provide missile defence protection. Given the unwelcome uncertainty that we are experiencing with nuclear proliferation, that is something we should welcome. It cannot be an easy decision for Turkey to take, but it is one that I welcome.
	As for Syria, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is not in his place, talked about Turkey’s remarkable restraint despite severe provocation, including
	shelling across the border and the destruction and shooting down by Syrian forces of a Turkish air force jet. However, there is clearly a limit beyond which Turkey will be drawn, and there may come a point when it decides that it is in its security interest to take action on its border. I would therefore ask the Minister to say what assessment of potential involvement through article 5 has been made and what discussions are continuing with the Turkish authorities.
	I would hope that everybody in this House wants to see a prosperous, democratic, diverse Turkey being welcomed into the European Union. It has huge potential to act both as a driver of growth in the European economy and as a bridge from the European economy into the emerging markets in north Africa and the middle east. It has always been my belief that for us to secure the political change that we have seen in the region, we will have to cement economic advancement for the peoples of the region too. I think Turkey has the potential to be a hugely useful bridge for Europe into those other markets.
	It is clear, however, that we need to see a resolution to the Cyprus question and, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, to the issues relating to the political persecution of journalists and the persecution of women. I would add that Turkey’s record on the treatment of its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender minorities is not great. The report highlights many of the issues on which we must continue to press the Turkish authorities, but, crucially, we need Turkey’s attitude towards Cyprus to lead to a resolution of that issue in due course. I am not over-optimistic that we will see progress on that in the next year, however. The Cyprus presidency could make it an explosive issue—that is perhaps not the best use of the word “explosive”—but we need to see a willingness on both sides to come together and resolve their difficulties in due course.
	I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who has recently led the creation of the British Mena—middle east and north Africa—Council here on the parliamentary estate. It is now the largest caucus of parliamentarians, with more than 200 Members of this House and the other place having expressed an interest in working on a cross-party basis to develop parliamentary relationships between the United Kingdom and the countries in those regions. I know that he remains interested in Turkey, as do I, and I am sure that the development of that new parliamentary body will pay dividends in the long run.
	Turkey adds to religious diversity and brings economic dynamism and cultural and historical depth to the table, as well as providing a meeting point for cultures and continents, and it should remain a strategic partner of our Government. It is absolutely right that the Foreign Office should take that approach, and I hope that it will take the very best of the report and build on the relationships that are, as I said, already very strong.

David Burrowes: I welcome this debate, which has been initiated as a result of the hard work of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and which provides an opportunity to talk about relations between the United Kingdom and Turkey. There is
	consensus across the House on the importance of having a positive relationship with Turkey, given its strategic position. In that context, we have heard references to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and beyond. Given Turkey’s geographical location between east and west, between Europe, north Africa and the middle east, it makes perfect sense for us to have a constructive relationship with it.
	Turkey’s economic importance has also been mentioned. We need to focus on its vibrant, dynamic economy, and I welcome our Government’s efforts to promote and make progress on the bilateral trade relations between our two countries. Allied with the Foreign Office’s remit in those areas is its remit to encourage improvements in the fields of democratisation and the adherence to human rights. Such improvements are vital not only for Turkey’s relationships with other countries but for the people of Turkey and the wider region.
	I count myself as a friend of Turkey. I often speak to members of the Turkish-speaking diaspora in my north London constituency, but it is easy to place too much emphasis on the Government of that country, and on whether one is a friend of that country. I have heard people making strong criticisms of Turkish Government policy, but that does not mean that they cannot be a friend of Turkey. I judge my friendship on the basis of the people of the country, particularly those I meet in my constituency, who make an enormous contribution to this country. I want to be a friend, but perhaps also a critical friend, of Turkey.

Fabian Hamilton: I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Turkey since the beginning of this Parliament, and I am proud to do so. Given the hon. Gentleman’s desire to continue his friendship with people in his constituency who are originally from Turkey and with the Turkish people more generally, would he consider joining the all-party group, if he is not already a member of it?

David Burrowes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. I am indeed a member of the group. I was recently invited to an all-party group visit, but if the hon. Gentleman is looking for names, I am not sure that I will be able to attend. My family is going to visit Turkey later in the summer.
	In waxing lyrical about the positives of this latest report, there is a but. The “but” relates to Cyprus. I do not ask for your leniency, Mr Speaker, in concentrating on Cyprus, as I see it as very much key to UK-Turkey relations. The report’s reference to Cyprus was minimal. I take the Chairman’s point that the Select Committee did not want to get too intervention-focused on issues surrounding Cyprus, but if we are considering UK-Turkey relations, Cyprus is very important. As paragraph 195 of the report states:
	“Turkey’s EU accession process is effectively hostage to the reaching of a settlement on Cyprus.”
	I understand that point, but the word “hostage” creates the impression that Turkey is a victim. The victims of the whole Cyprus issue are the people of Cyprus—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and, indeed, other communities on the island. Those victims should be our focus, particularly when this country has historic
	responsibilities and is a guarantor power with legal responsibilities. It is important that Britain steps up to the plate. Over nearly four decades, this Parliament has seen some seemingly intractable problems in divided countries and countries at war, yet they have been solved. Cyprus, however, is still divided and is not settled. As parliamentarians, we must do all we can to raise the issue of Cyprus and not sidestep it. We must see it as central to making further progress towards positive relations between Britain and Turkey.
	It is not just a matter of Cyprus alone, as the manner in which we abide by international agreements, Security Council resolutions and so forth also matters. How Turkey responds to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights matters, too. Such judgments go beyond, and have resonance beyond, Cyprus.
	Reference has been made to Turkey’s record on human rights. One has to acknowledge that particular and significant progress has been made, but concerns remain about the free press and freedom of expression. We have heard about journalists who have recently been detained and we have heard about the disproportionate number of Turkish cases that have gone through to the ECHR.
	A number of relatives of missing persons lost in the Cyprus conflict will come here next week. They come here every year. They can be seen on the green outside Parliament, usually with pictures of their lost relatives. What has also been lost is basic information and truth about their loved ones’ whereabouts. Progress has been made in Cyprus on a bi-communal basis to find the bones of the lost and to gain some element of truth. Unfortunately, however, there is a barrier, as they cannot get to the truth in areas under the control of Turkish forces. They cannot get information relating to relatives who went over to Turkey. The ECHR has said clearly that relevant information should be given to these relatives. Some of these people are citizens and constituents of mine and of other hon. Members. Year in, year out, they demand some element of truth, some information about basic human rights: they need to know what happened to their loves ones. The House has set up inquiries into missing persons, but in this case we are talking about people who have been missing for nearly four decades. Their relatives need to know the basic truth.
	I am chair of the all-party Cyprus group, which will shortly conduct an inquiry to see whether we can support the good work going on under UN auspices in Cyprus to speed up this process. Turkey can help by abiding by the Court’s judgment and allowing relevant information to be given to relatives and to the authorities.
	Another inquiry I have been involved in seeks to emphasise the positives in Turkey. I chaired an inquiry into the persecution of Christians in Iran for Christians in Parliament, which revealed the appalling abuses of brave people who had had to leave the country because of the persecution of themselves and their families. A number have been given refuge in Turkey. We should welcome that, and acknowledge its importance for Iranian Christians, some of whom I hope to meet when I visit Turkey. We should also note that Syrians have sought refuge there.
	Let me return to the issue of Cyprus. We must not tolerate the intolerable. The status quo is unacceptable—unacceptable to us, given our relations with Turkey. We
	in Europe should not have allowed the existence of a divided capital and a divided island for so long. An area in the north of Cyprus is the most heavily militarised in the world, which is extraordinary. We should not accept that for the duration of the six-month presidency, saying “We shall just have to park it for six months, and see what the Irish can do when they have the presidency.” It cannot be right that Turkey does not recognise Cyprus as a sovereign nation. Britain does not have a remote responsibility; as I have said before, it is a guarantor power, and Cyprus has every right to take up the presidency which affirms its membership of the European Union and the sovereignty of the whole island.
	As has been reported in the press, the Turkish Government recently said:
	“no ministry or organisation of the Turkish Republic will take part in any activity that will be presided by southern Cyprus.”
	I would expect our Government to agree that that is intolerable and unacceptable. Turkey wants to join Europe—it wants to join the club—but it must accept the rules which include a rotating presidency. Britain supports Turkey’s accession, but Turkey must not only recognise the Republic of Cyprus but fulfil its obligation under the Ankara protocol to allow Cypriot ships to use Turkish ports.
	I want to be positive. The need for creativity has been mentioned, and both the report and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred to the opportunities presented by the hydrocarbon reserves. They are a new dynamic, and they are being explored in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone for the benefit of the whole island and all its communities. That is crucial. The reserves are a natural resource for Cyprus alone, not for the guarantor powers. As the report says, that natural resource could facilitate a settlement and could enable Cyprus to rely less on the financial sector, which is increasingly fragile and volatile, on the recent EU bail-outs, and on the good will of Russian banks and interests.
	It is also important to understand the wider dynamic: yes, a dynamic to support a settlement, but also one relating to the wider region which involves Turkey and Israel. There are agreements between the Republic of Cyprus and Israel, but the dynamic needs to be wider. There is an opportunity to provide a big source of energy for the region, and a source of security as well. We should welcome that development, and, given our expertise in this country, I hope that we can make real progress in supporting that resource for the benefit of Cypriots.
	We also need to recognise that Turkey should not threaten Cyprus’s sovereign rights to explore and exploit hydrocarbon reserves in an exclusive economic zone. That is unacceptable, because that is threatening the very independence of the resource and Cyprus’s legal rights within the exclusive economic zone. We must not say that we have been fatigued by the Cyprus problem for so long that we will leave it to be solved by Cypriots. That should indeed happen, but we must exercise our responsibilities.
	Another opportunity is presented by the Greek-Cypriot Varosha section of Famagusta, a small town on the east coast of Cyprus. Anyone who goes there will see the barbed wire. Varosha was frozen in time after being overrun by Turkish forces in 1974. It was sealed off,
	looted, became uninhabited, and has been decaying for nearly 40 years. However, we have the opportunity to accept United Nations Security Council resolutions 550 and 789, which call for Varosha to be under the control of the UN. If we can support Turkey in resolving this issue so that people can return to Varosha, it will create confidence and help greatly. If human rights are respected, information on missing people is given, the return to Varosha is supported and the natural gas question is addressed, we might be able to reunite Cyprus, which would be good for Cyprus, good for Turkey and good for UK-Turkey relations.

Stewart Jackson: There are not many benefits to being a Back Bencher, but one is that we can sometimes ruffle feathers and say what we think and, above all, challenge the received wisdom. I accept that the majority view in this debate is that the accession of Turkey to the EU would be a good thing. I agree that, in many ways, that is indeed the case, and it would be churlish and remiss of me not to acknowledge the very important point that Turkey is a major trading partner, with the 17th or 18th largest economy in the world and growth that is five times the EU average—although that is not particularly difficult to achieve nowadays.
	Turkey has made progress in many key areas, and it was the eastern outpost of NATO command through the difficult years of the cold war. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—who is no longer in his place—made clear, it has been a loyal supporter of both the UK and the United States over many years. The strategic importance of Turkey is not in doubt either, as it stands at the juncture of the west, the near east and the middle east.
	I can well understand why Turkey still harbours strong ambitions to join the EU. The fact that that is in our strategic interests is based on two presuppositions, however: that we should filter out issues other than the economic progress of Turkey, and that we accept, to a certain degree, that our strategic geopolitical interests are the same as those of the US. It has always been in the US strategic interest for Turkey to be a bulwark against potential Islamist difficulties, whether in the form of violence or the exertion of influence in the sub-region.
	I accept all that, and that Prime Minister Erdogan is making a good fist of reform in the country, but it is important to strike some notes of concern on human rights, free speech, crime, justice and immigration, as well as on an issue that should not be dismissed lightly—as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) did earlier—which is the continuing affront and offence of the systematic denial of the world’s first modern genocide. That word was invented in 1943 to describe what happened in the Ottoman empire, beginning in April 1915, to between 600,000 and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians. The fact that there is still that systematic denial causes great concern to many people across the world, most recently in France.
	I am also mindful of the fact that insufficient work has been done in examining the possible ramifications of Turkey’s accession to the EU. I commend to the House the comprehensive Home Affairs Committee
	report of last July, “Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union”. It made some very important points, but before I discuss them, let me point out that there are other areas of the criminal justice system that should cause us concern. One of them is the ill-treatment of prisoners in Turkish prisons. The Amnesty International 2012 report stated that allegations of torture persist and that there are ineffective investigations into alleged human rights abuses by state officials.
	As has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), no progress has been made in protecting the rights of children in the judicial system. There are 47 states whose citizens can apply to the European Court of Human Rights, and at the end of 2011 Turkey applied for 10.5% of the 151,600 cases pending, requiring a judicial decision.The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report highlights concerns about Turkey’s domestic judicial capacity and the major backlog of cases, with 1.4 million criminal cases and more than 1 million civil cases pending at the end of 2010.
	Serious concerns have been expressed over many years about the media and freedom of expression. In addition, women’s rights and equality remain a persistent concern, particularly, even though the numbers are decreasing, in the context of honour killings, domestic violence, sexual assault and forced marriage. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, like my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), rightly refers to religious freedom in Turkey, and states:
	“We recommend that the FCO should remain vigilant on issues of religious freedom and discrimination and should ensure that its Turkish partners are clear about its stance in this respect.”
	Not so long ago, Human Rights Watch said:
	“As the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government focused on promoting Turkey’s regional interests in response to the pro-democracy Arab Spring movements, human rights suffered setbacks at home. The government has not prioritized human rights reforms since 2005, and freedom of expression and association have both been damaged by the ongoing prosecution and incarceration of journalists, writers, and hundreds of Kurdish political activists”,
	particularly through the misuse of the overly broad terrorism laws that, to give him his due, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Committee, has mentioned.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as he has not been present for the whole debate.
	I have concerns about justice and home affairs. I find it quite astonishing that the Home Office—or any Government Department—has not looked in any systematic way at how many people would be likely to move from Turkey to other European countries if the freedom of movement directive applied and after any transition period that was put in place. Figures ranging between 500,000 and 4.4 million are often cited.
	Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, has stated that Turkish criminal groups are significantly involved in various forms of organised criminality, including the
	trafficking of heroin and synthetic drugs and the trafficking of cocaine to Europe from South America via Turkey and the Balkans. It has described “very high” levels of human trafficking to Turkey and high levels of trafficking through the country, as well as people smuggling and other criminal activities including fraud, firearms trafficking, money laundering and copyright offences.
	Turkey has become a prominent stepping stone in irregular flows of migrants coming from further afield who aim to enter the European Union. The Turkish ambassador to the United Kingdom recently told the Home Affairs Committee that nearly 800,000 illegal immigrants have been apprehended while attempting to cross Turkish territory over the past 15 years. By October 2010, 46% of all irregular immigration detected at the EU external border took place at the land border between Greece and Turkey and the authorities estimated that up to 350 migrants were attempting to cross the 12.5 km land border near the Greek city of Orestiada every day.
	EU accession would have implications. The length of the external land border with Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran and Syria would put great stresses and strains on the EU’s external border, given that the EU has already been critical of the Turkish border security capacity. The Minister may wish to comment on the fact that there has been no impact analysis of Turkish accession on future migration trends. We need to take a serious look at that, even though accession may be many years away.
	It is appropriate to mention the Armenian genocide, which is an issue of great hurt and offence to Armenian people across the world. It began on 24 April 1915 and, with the systematic deportation and murder of up to 1.5 million people, it is the first modern example of genocide. Armenians perished as a result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment and physical abuse. A people who had lived in Turkey for nearly 3,000 years lost their homeland and were decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the 20th century. I concede that that was 97 years ago, but it is difficult to accept the fact that the Turkish Government refuse to countenance the idea that it is an incontestable historical fact.

Robert Walter: I hear what my hon. Friend says. For many years, historians have tried to define genocide. He is trying to condemn the Government of the modern Turkish state post-1923 for a crime that was, or was not, committed by the Ottoman empire, of which both Armenia and the Turkic peoples were part.

Stewart Jackson: I yield to no one in my enormous respect for my colleague in the Inter-Parliamentary Union and his great love for Turkey and affinity for the country. I bear no malice as a candid friend to the wonderful, decent people of Turkey but I quote Leo Kuper, who was an eminent academic at the University of California, Los Angeles and said:
	“The Armenian genocide is a contemporary current issue, given the persistent aggressive denial of the crime by the Turkish government—notwithstanding its own judgment in courts martial after the first World War, that its leading ministers had deliberately planned and carried out the annihilation of Armenians, with the participation of many regional administrators.”
	My point is not that that series of events did not happen at the end of the Ottoman empire in Anatolia, which is now part of modern Turkey, but that a key issue in assessing the suitability and fitness of a country seeking to be part of a club founded on the bedrock of legality, fairness and equality is the fact that it should acknowledge past mistakes and crimes that took place almost 100 years ago. In that respect, just as the Turkish Government have to move on the issue of Cyprus and countenance the right of the Cypriot people to self-determination, democracy and freedom, they must accept that the Armenian genocide happened. They have to apologise and move forward, as happened in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, with a truth and reconciliation process to put to rest that disastrous, despicable, appalling series of events almost 100 years ago.
	We have had an interesting debate. I do not agree with everyone who has spoken, but these issues are of such great importance and clarity historically that they must be raised.

Neil Carmichael: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, which is on an interesting subject. It has been an honour to listen to many speeches, not least from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who introduced the debate and presides over a Committee that does some really good work, which should be recognised.
	I have been to Turkey—mainly Istanbul, which is a vibrant, exciting city. I went there several years ago, partly because some friends of mine were moving their business interests there. I found it fascinating to watch how they were integrating with the Turkish business community and how Turkey was becoming quite an exciting place in which to invest. I did invest, incidentally, in a fez. The only useful thing that did was to alert all other traders to the fact that I was a tourist and should be approached immediately to see whether I would buy anything else.
	I have also visited Cyprus and there I took note of the partition of that country between Greece and Turkey. I know that it is an important obstacle to Turkey’s eventual membership of the European Union, which I hope will be a reality some time in the future.
	We have heard a little about the Ottoman empire, and quite right too. One thing to remember about the Ottoman empire is that its rise, its life and above all its fall were interesting to the rest of Europe. We should recognise that we are influenced by what goes on there, and we should be attempting to influence that area now. On that premise I shall make a number of points, not just about foreign policy, but about the economic situation in Turkey, which I have already mentioned. A country as big as Turkey, with a relatively vibrant economy—even a decline in growth rate will still give it a growth rate higher than ours for some time—is one that we should be cultivating as a potential partner in the European Union. We must develop trade and it is important that we focus on doing that.
	I agree with some of the speakers who emphasised some of the difficulties that that process entails. This morning I was at a breakfast discussing trade with China. There we heard about the importance of our diplomats and our embassies in promoting trade, and
	we learned just how powerful and determined the Americans were at promoting business in other countries. The American diplomatic service is robust and determined to promote businesses. We even heard that ambassadors were present at various meetings for banks in competition with other banks, including one based in Britain. It is important that we recognise the strength and the power of our diplomatic corps in promoting business, and that certainly applies to Turkey.
	As one or two other Members have pointed out in connection with energy, the European Union has another interest in Turkey because of energy development and other industrial and entrepreneurial activity. It is critical that we do not lose the opportunity to bind Turkey into the European Union at a time when that is feasible. Feasibility can be judged on several criteria, one of which is human rights. I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that 10% of all cases currently before the European Court of Human Rights are from Turkey. The highest number of cases are from Russia, to which Turkey is second. That is a strong signal that Turkey must improve its human rights record, and we need to make sure that it is one of the tools that we bargain with, in order to encourage Turkey to think about human rights so that it can join the European Union at some time.
	A change of Government in Turkey has altered the tendency to think western rather than eastern. We should recognise in our deliberations about Turkey that the new feeling in the Turkish Foreign Ministry is that, although it would be a good idea to join the European Union, there are other options. We should bear that in mind as we consider how we might tackle the issue. Many speakers in the debate mentioned that France in particular and Germany are slightly concerned about Turkey’s membership of the European Union. Germany, with its tradition of guest workers, will clearly have to think carefully about that, not just because of the history of that tradition, but because of the number of Turks currently in Germany.
	France is an interesting case. I think that we should take a leaf out of Edward Heath’s book—oddly enough—because he recognised that getting Britain into the European Union depended not on persuading the Germans or any other country, but on persuading the country that was least keen on it, which was France. That is why he was so right to visit President Pompidou and ensure that he squared that off before going to the other nation states, unlike Harold Wilson, who did it in exactly the opposite direction, which inevitably ended in failure.
	Turkey has some really interesting foreign policy issues that we need to think about swiftly and carefully. The first is that it has changed its mind about two key countries in its region. It used to be a pretty strong supporter of the Assad regime and the Syrian Government in general, but obviously now it is not. It is learning what to do, reacting to changes and is itself a change agent. Likewise, Turkey’s attitude to Israel has changed in recent years, demonstrating that it is thinking about its position in the region, which is something that Britain and the European Union as a whole need to understand, because Turkey will not sit there idly while the rest of us watch and wait. That is yet another reason why we should be very sensible in how we judge and calibrate exactly what we do and say to Turkey with regard to foreign policy.
	One thing that is critical, but which has not really been mentioned in the debate in the context I am speaking about, is the fact that Turkey currently has an Islamic Government, but a moderate Islamic Government. Therefore, we should have a relationship with Turkey to influence the rest of the region through a Government who have some semblance of democracy and some interest in the west as well as the east. In other words, Turkey is a conduit to the places where we need more influence than we currently have. It seems to me that we should recognise that description of Turkey and apply the logical consequences. If we feel that it is a friendly Islamic country, we should be cultivating our friendship with it. That is one of the most important reasons why we should be talking about Turkey in a constructive way.
	I will draw these threads together, because it seems to me that there is something very potent about recognising that human rights, economic interest and, in effect, good governance can be tied together. We can then demonstrate that the European Union, when it can request, prove and then expect all those things to be saluted for membership, is making progress. However, we can also take those three things and say to Turkey and the rest of the region, “These are the things we want and that are better for you, with regard to economic development, political stability and the recognition of states.” Of course, the situation in the middle east is the obvious and important example of that. It is just like the Helsinki accords in 1975, which effectively allowed in eastern Europe the recognition of human rights, economic interests and good governance, and the key driver then turned out to be human rights. That was the key driver motivating the signatories to the Helsinki accords, and the ones who were least confident and least free, with regard to their political rights, were the ones who ended up using them to get their freedoms eventually.
	Through a combination of recognising that Turkey has economic interests that are akin to ours, that is has regional interests and is a moderate Islamic state that we can talk to and use as a conduit, and that there is enormous economic potential not just in Turkey but in the vicinity, we should think carefully about how, in the long run, Turkey can become a member of the European Union. It will not happen overnight or within a few years, but we should work for it, because it will mean good foreign policy in the long run.

Robert Syms: I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee on its report and, indeed, the measured and sensible way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has introduced today’s debate. We do not debate these subjects enough, and we need to discuss our relationship with foreign states—particularly those that have a long record of friendship with, and are allies of, the United Kingdom—a lot more in this Chamber.
	As we have heard, Turkey is a bridge, and a bridge in a number of directions. We saw its intervention in Libya and in other parts of the middle east—I think for the good; we see its influence growing in parts of what was
	the southern Soviet Union, where there are a number of Turkic states; and we see its influence through its relationships with Europe.
	Europe has a problem, however, because we have tended to take the Turks too much for granted. They were staunch, solid allies of NATO for decades, and we would have been glad enough to have them side by side had we been in conflict with the Soviet Union; now, we are a little more fussy and critical of our relationship than we were when the Turks were very much our allies in the cold war.
	One can argue whether Turkey should or should not join the European Union, but the promise has been made, and on occasions it has seen other states fast-tracked into the EU, while for decades it has expected to join but has not yet been given that opportunity.
	I do not pretend that it will be easy for a large and still largely Muslim country to come into the EU, but the promise has been made and at some point the EU has to deal with the situation straightforwardly, otherwise we may end up with extremists in that country reacting against engagement with the European Union.
	Turkey is a young and fast-growing country, it is certainly growing much faster than those in the eurozone and it is one of the main beneficiaries of the fact that its near neighbour, Greece, has the euro, because many Brits now go to Turkey and enjoy the benefits of a very cost-effective holiday. There is a great deal to benefit this country if we increase our trade and engagement with Turkey, but I do not mean playing at it; I mean having a long-term dialogue with the Turks.
	I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, after he was elected, went to Turkey, and that President Obama, after he was elected, realised how important Turkey was and went to address its Parliament, but we cannot just pop up and make the odd speech; we need long-term engagement with the Turks, because there is still a lot of common ground and there is great potential for exports. Turkey is more likely to be a force for good than for harm. Of course it has to make progress on human rights, but its history of democracy and of human rights is rather more recent than ours, and, although it is improving, it will take a while yet.
	This has been a worthwhile debate, and the Committee has produced a worthwhile report, which I commend to many in the House. We need to do a lot more to engage with states such as Turkey, which are good allies, good friends and could be good customers, promoting and sustaining many more jobs in the UK, as they grow at a much faster rate than our near neighbours in the European Union.

Andrew Rosindell: I am proud, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to be associated with its report.
	Turkey is a country that we should focus on a great deal more than we have in recent years—a country that has been a staunch ally as a member of NATO, and a country that we have always had good relations with in modern times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) said, we have in recent times taken it somewhat for granted. However, as a friend of Turkey’s, we should give it the honest advice that it needs during these developing years. It applied to join the European
	Union some time ago, but it has not yet been accepted. I was part of a delegation visiting Turkey last October and the clear message that I picked up, from speaking to many people, was that they wanted to join the European Union for reasons of acceptability, to be part of the family of European nations, and not necessarily for economic reasons; it is, of course, already part of a customs union.
	We must be candid friends to Turkey. We must ensure that, whatever decision it makes about the European Union—and it is its decision whether to join—it is given the advice of a friend who has been a member of that organisation for many years. I hope that Turkey will continue wanting to be part of the family of European nations and carry on its tradition of wanting a secular society and western values.
	I hope that we will respect the wishes of the people in Turkey. I think that there is a feeling there that they have, in some ways, been pushed aside by us in Europe and that we have not given them the respect that they deserve. We accepted the country’s support during the cold war, of course, but now it feels slightly disjointed. The British Government and all Governments in the European Union need to understand that.
	I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee report and its findings. I reiterate my steadfast support for Turkey as it continues to navigate successfully towards a bright future as part of the family of democratic nations in the European region of the world.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome today’s debate on UK-Turkey relations and Turkey’s regional role. I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was briefly a member, on its excellent report on the issue.
	Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have made thoughtful contributions. The Select Committee Chair gave a comprehensive overview of the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) underlined the need to resolve the Turkish question, and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) stressed that Europe’s neighbourhood is Turkey’s neighbourhood. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reminded us that we can be both a friend and critic of Turkey’s. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) demonstrated, as ever, that he is the Foreign Office’s keenest human resources critic.
	We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
	Turkey is vital to the UK, geographically, strategically and economically. Geographically, it is at the crossroads between east and west and it remains one of the most important transit countries for the movement of goods and people anywhere in the world. It is as important now as when the merchants of the silk road travelled the country exchanging goods, philosophy and culture between Europe and the east.
	Strategically, Turkey is its region’s rising power and it is vital to the UK, Europe and the United States. It is a
	key NATO partner, given not only its geography but the size of its military. It has the second largest army in NATO in terms of personnel, second only to the United States. Turkey is a democratic, secular Muslim country that offers hope and inspiration to countries in the region—especially those going through radical transformation as a result of the Arab spring. In the middle east, Turkey is central to securing stability across the region and, crucially, to solving the conflict in Syria and securing a nuclear-free Iran.
	Economically, Turkey is a rapidly rising force. In the past 10 years, its economy has grown, on average, by more than 5% a year. Its gross domestic product has tripled. Trade and direct investment have increased dramatically. By 2050, it is set to be one of the world’s top 10 economies, with a vibrant, young and growing population, more than 50% of whom are under 30.
	Turkey is already an important member of the G20 and its influence is growing. Its economic rise is impressive, especially given the dark economic days that it suffered in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Turkey’s democratic development is also impressive given the military dominance of the past century, with four coups in the past 50 years. The so-called deep state has now been successfully dismantled.
	Given Turkey’s ever-increasing prominence and importance, we fully support the continued strengthening of the UK’s bilateral relationship. Labour Members are proud that in 2007 the then Prime Minister agreed the first UK-Turkey strategic partnership. In 2010, British exports to Turkey totalled over £1 billion. About 2 million British nationals visit Turkey every year. There are over 150,000 Turkish nationals and about 500,000 people of Turkish origin in the UK. In cities across the UK, we can see evidence of the contribution that these Turkish communities make to the fabric of British society. There continues to be a strong cultural exchange between our countries. We therefore support the Select Committee’s assertion that the Government are correct to seek to strengthen the UK’s relations with Turkey as a strategic partner. This partnership covers agreements on a range of issues including education, defence, regional stability and culture—from managing migration flows to the development of low-carbon technologies.
	We welcome the Foreign Office’s commitment to increasing its diplomatic presence in the country. We also welcome the recent military co-operation treaty agreed and signed by the Government and the Turkish Government. The Select Committee is right to note that the strategic partnership is a means of measuring the success of the Government’s policy on our bilateral relations with Turkey. Two years on from his Government’s launch of the renewed strategic partnership, I look forward to hearing the Minister reflect on the key achievements to date and the key objectives for the years to come.
	Alongside Turkey’s economic rise, its regional and international prominence has also been significantly enhanced. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay in saying that Labour Members commend Turkey for its ongoing commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. Turkey has supported many NATO, UK and EU foreign policy objectives. Today, crucially, Turkey is central to resolving the horrific conflict in Syria. We welcome Turkey’s involvement in the Friends of Syria group; it hosted the group’s second
	meeting in April. We welcome the steps that Turkey has taken to encourage dialogue between opposition leaders by hosting talks in Istanbul. Turkey has accepted over 36,000 Syrian refugees and, crucially, it has offered a safe haven for defectors from the Syrian military. As a fellow member of NATO, we welcome Turkey’s moderation in its reaction to Syria’s unprovoked and unacceptable attack on a Turkish aircraft on 22 June. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South emphasised, Turkey’s restraint in this matter was exemplary.
	On Iran, Turkey has been proactive in trying to find solutions to securing a nuclear-free Iran. It recently hosted a P5 plus 1 meeting in Istanbul and this week it has been hosting a meeting of technical experts.
	Turkey’s wider role in the region is also important. The hon. Member for North Dorset stressed its influence in the Balkans. The Kosovan Foreign Minister recently praised Turkey for its positive role in the region in recognition of its efforts in helping to establish better relations between Serbia and Kosova—a relationship that we and, I am sure, the Government will want to be improved.
	Following the dramatic transformations triggered by the Arab spring, Turkey played a leading role in supporting democratic change. The Turkish Prime Minister was the first international leader to call for President Mubarak to stand down. The Select Committee is right to underline the importance of a democratic, secular and Muslim state such as Turkey acting as an inspiration to moderate political forces in north Africa and the middle east.
	Finally, let me turn to Turkey’s EU membership. We welcome the continued cross-party consensus in this House in favour of Turkey’s EU membership. The Select Committee rightly focuses on this issue in the second part of its report. When Labour was in government, we were a strong advocate of Turkey’s accession, and we are pleased that the current Government have continued this policy. However, as several right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, we must recognise the difficulties in this area, not all of which relate to the acquis communautaire. It is regrettable that for the next six months the negotiations will be suspended. It is encouraging that relations between Turkey and France seem to be on a better footing since the election of François Hollande in May. President Hollande has accepted the invitation of Prime Minister Erdogan to visit Turkey, which will be the first such visit by a French President for 20 years.
	There are also problems with regard to the acquis communautaire, as was highlighted by the European Commission’s recent progress report. Turkey has a great deal of progress to make on human rights, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members, in particular with regard to the freedom of expression and the reform of the judiciary. I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendations in that area, in particular that the Foreign Office should ensure that Turkey is left in no doubt that the shortcomings in its justice system are damaging to the country’s international reputation. We also agree with the recommendation that the Foreign Office should suggest that the Turkish Government encourage prosecutors and judges to exercise restraint in the use of pre-trial detention while the reforms to the justice system are being carried out.
	We are concerned about the Select Committee’s finding that some improvements in human rights have been reversed, especially with regard to the limiting of media freedoms and freedom of expression. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay again, there are also concerns about LGBT rights. In its recent accession report, the European Parliament urges the Turkish Government to ensure that LGBT rights are guaranteed by the law and effectively enforced, and that they are respected by the police.
	The Select Committee is right that a settlement on the relationship between the Turkish state and Turkey’s Kurdish community is vital. It is of great concern that over the past year the level of violence in that decades-long conflict has increased. It is estimated that over the past 30 years 45,000 lives have been lost. As recently as last month, 34 people were killed at a military border post. However, there are also encouraging signs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South outlined, there is a greater level of co-operation between the Turkish Government and the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq, including plans to build an oil pipeline between the two areas. I echo the question put to the Minister by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee: what do the Government think the prospects are for a settlement on this issue in the months and years to come?

Kelvin Hopkins: I have not heard the whole of my hon. Friend’s speech, but she has not touched on the Cyprus problem in the last part of it. I know that the matter has been discussed in the debate, but she has not mentioned it. Will she say something about Cyprus?

Emma Reynolds: I thank my hon. Friend for his late intervention. There has been quite a lot of discussion of the Cyprus question. It is clearly an obstacle to progress in Turkey’s accession negotiations. I referred to it somewhat obliquely when I talked about political problems, rather than problems relating to the acquis communautaire, in Turkey’s membership negotiations.
	In conclusion, today’s debate has underlined the many reasons why Turkey is an important strategic and economic partner to the UK. As I touched on earlier, as a result of the Arab spring there is a high degree of hope for a democratic future in the middle east and north Africa, but also a high degree of uncertainty. The ongoing crisis in Syria and the problems with Iran serve only to exacerbate that instability. Turkey is a vital ally in that key region and beyond. It is a stable, democratic, secular, Islamic state, a beacon of democracy and an inspiration for countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. For all those reasons, it is clear that Turkey is a strategic partner of growing importance to the UK. I look forward to hearing how the Minister and the Government will continue to strengthen our bilateral relationship with this important country.

David Lidington: I first pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Committee for a report that, even by its ordinarily high standards, is exceptional in its breadth and significance. It ranges across many aspects of both the UK’s bilateral relationship with Turkey and Turkey’s growing self-confidence and
	influence in her region and the world. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the other members of the Committee on the report and on securing the debate.
	I welcome, too, the Committee’s recognition of the Government’ efforts to deepen our already strong bilateral relationship, building on the strategic partnership that the two Prime Ministers signed in 2010. President Gul’s state visit last November was a great success, and eight months on, when we look at the scale of co-operation between the United Kingdom and Turkey across the board—from trade and investment to justice and home affairs to our approach to the conflict in Syria—it is clear that our relationship has never been stronger.
	In the time allotted to me, I wish to try to respond to the various points that Members have raised. I start with foreign policy, because the report and the debate have highlighted the truth that, today, Turkey matters on the world stage to an increasing extent. She is a vital foreign policy partner for the UK, increasingly driving forward international co-operation in regions that are critical to this country’s interests, notably the middle east. As a prosperous, modern democracy with a largely but not entirely Muslim population, Turkey continues to act as an inspiration to countries affected by the Arab spring.
	In Syria, Turkey is playing a vital role within the international community to exert pressure on the Assad regime to end its violence. The support of the Turkish Government for opposition groups based in that country can play an important part in the transition to a peaceful and fully democratic Government in Syria. We support the active role that Turkey is playing, including its decision to host a ministerial meeting of the core group last month in Istanbul. Although it was not mentioned in the debate, it is right to commend the care that Turkey is providing to more than 35,000 refugees from Syria who have fled the violence in their own country.
	As my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out, the shooting down of a Turkish aircraft on 22 June highlights the risks posed to all Syria’s neighbours by the continuing crisis there. In her response to the incident, Turkey has shown considerable restraint. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has condemned the Syrian regime’s actions in the strongest terms, as has NATO, and all NATO allies stand together with Turkey in solidarity and will continue to work closely with her in the months ahead. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), there has been no discussion of invoking article 5.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) pointed out, Turkey has increasing regional influence, and an alliance with Turkey can therefore provide extra diplomatic reach to the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. Although Syria has been our immediate focus, we continue to build our foreign policy co-operation with Turkey on areas such as Afghanistan—my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay rightly paid tribute to Turkey’s role in ISAF—Iran, the western Balkans, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said, and Somalia. We will look for all opportunities to deepen such co-operation over the coming months, both bilaterally and within the EU, where we welcomed Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s attendance at the March Foreign Affairs Council.
	The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked me about Turkey’s rather fraught relationship with Israel. We must acknowledge that this is a sensitive issue for both countries, but the UK believes strongly that both should take steps towards reconciliation, because it is in both their interests and would be an important contribution to greater regional stability and the broader middle east peace process.
	The general point about the need for an effort to improve relations also applies to Turkey’s relationship with Armenia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), pointed out, there is a history of grief and appalling human rights abuses in the early part of the 20th century. Modern Turkey and Armenia need to find a way to live together as neighbours and friends as soon as possible.
	Commercially, Turkey has a great story to tell—a growing economy, good demographics, a strong entrepreneurial spirit and an increasing openness to international partnership and investment—and there are growing opportunities for British businesses, which we will look to exploit. The Prime Minister has committed the Government to doubling trade with Turkey by 2015. To this end, we have set up a joint economic and trade committee that meets annually and serves as an official forum for Ministers and officials from both countries to explore how to enhance that commercial relationship.
	At the same time, we have established with the Turks a chief executive officer forum to bring together business leaders to discuss how to increase trade and investment flows. Finally, we have set up a knowledge partnership, launched by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary when he visited Turkey last September, the purpose of which is to promote science, innovation, entrepreneurship and investment between the UK and Turkey. All three forums will meet later this year.
	The trade statistics so far demonstrate that we are on target to reach our goal. Bilateral trade with Turkey exceeded £9 billion in 2011—up nearly 40% from 2009—and last year our exports to Turkey increased by 20%, reaching £3.7 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was interested in some examples. Invensys has succeeded in its bid for an £800 million rail upgrading project in Turkey. Diageo is, I believe, one of the leading raki manufacturers in Turkey, and Rolls-Royce, Thales and Ultra Electronics have been successful in the field of defence contracts.
	Recent visits to Turkey by the lord mayor of London, by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, the Minister for Universities and Science and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Lord Green, are all helping to intensify our economic ties. The first joint UK Trade and Investment-CBI mission to Turkey, specifically aimed at medium-sized businesses, was led by Lord Green and John Cridland in April. We chose Turkey as the first global destination for this type of trade mission because of the opportunities Turkey can offer to UK business.
	Energy brings together both political and economic interests. Turkey can be an important energy transit route, bringing non-Russian gas from the Caspian to Europe—something that is in Europe and the UK’s strategic interest and of direct benefit to British Petroleum, its being the major energy investor in Azerbaijan. We also welcome the agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan, dated 26 June, on a trans-Anatolian pipeline.
	The opportunities that Turkey provides in the field of energy make even more frustrating the fact that the energy chapter in Turkey’s EU accession negotiations remains blocked, given that our deepening bilateral relationship is underpinned by continuing firm support for full Turkish membership of the European Union.
	The Turkish-EU accession process and her relations with the EU were rightly a major theme of the Committee’s inquiry. We firmly believe that a stronger and closer relationship between the European Union and Turkey will support the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom and the EU. At the same time, we believe that the process of accession negotiations can be the most important driver towards economic, democratic, judicial and political reform within Turkey—reforms that many Members on both sides of the House have been calling for in an accelerated reform in this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, quite fairly, raised questions about migration and organised crime. Migration would have to be tackled during the accession negotiations and in the context of the stage of administrative, political and economic development that Turkey had reached at that time. On looking at other EU candidates or new EU members, the track record is that progress against organised crime is most likely to be accelerated when those countries are engaged in the detail of the accession process, with the requirement that that brings for serious action against corruption and organised crime.
	We acknowledge that recent progress in the formal accession negotiations has been disappointing, and we have therefore strongly supported Commissioner Fule’s positive agenda for EU-Turkey relations. There is some sign of encouragement from the comments made by President Hollande in France, but we are right to remain cautious. This remains a very sensitive political issue within France.
	I am not going to dwell at length on the issue of Cyprus, which the House will have other opportunities to debate. However, I say in direct response to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we welcome President Christofias saying that the gas reserves should benefit all the people living in Cyprus. We hope that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus will take further steps to demonstrate to Turkish Cypriots that they have a clear interest in the development of these reserves. There has never been any doubt about the United Kingdom’s support for the right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop the reserves that lie within its exclusive economic zone.
	The only other thing I would say about Cyprus is that we remain committed to a settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation of Cyprus, with equal rights for all communities and citizens, and in compliance with the relevant United Nations organisation. We continue to support the Cypriot-led process, facilitated by the United Nations, to bring that about. A comprehensive, permanent political settlement in Cyprus is in the interest of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece, Europe and the United Kingdom, and would add hugely to the stability and prosperity of the whole eastern Mediterranean region.
	I have very little time left, so I will write to those Members who made points about human rights if I do not have time to deal with them now. I do want to respond.
	One of the most important aspects of the accession process is the role it has played in supporting Turkey’s reforms in areas such as civilian control of the military and the independence of the judiciary. There is, as many Members have said, a long way still to travel, but at the same time it is right that we acknowledge the transformation that has taken place in Turkish life since the military ran that country. Even as recently as last month, laws were passed to establish an independent human rights institute and an independent human rights ombudsman. This week, the Turkish Parliament voted through measures to speed up court procedures and institute other judicial reforms, and a draft law on trade union rights is now before the Turkish Parliament.
	Those achievements over the past decade have been compelling, but as Turkey recognises, further improvements are needed in areas such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and women’s rights. We urge Turkey to accelerate the pace of reform in those areas, including through the introduction of further reform packages and an inclusive constitutional reform process. As the United Kingdom Government, we have offered, and continue to offer, technical assistance on a range of issues, including freedom of expression, women’s rights and judicial reform—
	Debate interrupted, and Question deferred (Standing Order No.  54 ).
	The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54).

ESTIMATES 2012-13

Home Office

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Home Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £5,223,694,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1919 of Session 2010-12,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £274,499,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £5,536,178,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,218,567,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1919 of Session 2010-12,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £53,850,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,152,371,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.
	The Deputy Speaker then put the Question on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

Estimates 2012-13

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £254,603,561,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1794, 1919, 1924, and 1927 of Session 2010-12, and in HC 8 and 342 of this Session,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £26,235,886,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £246,245,378,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Jeremy  Wright .)
	Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, 2012-13;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Miss Chloe Smith, Mr David Gauke and Mr Mark Hoban bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr Mark Hoban accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the year ending with 31 March 2013; to authorise both the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of income for that year; and to appropriate the supply authorised for that year by this Act and by the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2012.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 54).

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to Terrorism.—(Jeremy  Wright .)
	Question agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.
	The Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Indian Mujahideen—the IM—to the list of 47 international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 10th proscription under the 2000 Act.
	Section 3 of the 2000 Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including through the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way so early in what will probably be a short contribution. What reviews have been conducted of all the other organisations on the list? Every time these orders come up, we seem to add to the list, rather than subtract from it.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell the House that an annual review is undertaken in respect of all the proscribed organisations. I also note the recommendation from David Anderson, the independent reviewer on terrorism, in respect of a mechanism for de-proscription. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining that recommendation carefully, and that we will respond to David Anderson’s report in due course.

Keith Vaz: The Select Committee’s report on the roots of radicalism supported what the Government were doing, but suggested that the matter needed to be looked at. It is six months since the publication of the report. Given that the Minister is now bringing another organisation before the House, will he tell us when we can expect a definitive answer from the Government on what form that mechanism will take?

James Brokenshire: I acknowledge the Select Committee’s interest. Indeed, I gave evidence to the Committee, and I remember the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me during the evidence sessions. The matter is being considered, in relation to the Select Committee’s report and in the context of the recommendation made by the independent reviewer. All I can say is that we will make a further announcement in due course. Unfortunately, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a more specific answer now, but I
	acknowledge the point that he is making, and we will respond to the points made by the Select Committee and by the independent reviewer shortly.
	We recognise that proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, the proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of the organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that could arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual was a member or supporter of the relevant organisation.
	Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on that organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, she firmly believes that IM is involved in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to give them the following information. IM is a terrorist organisation based in India. It emerged in 2007. It uses violence in its attempts to achieve its stated objectives of creating an Islamic state in India and of implementing sharia law there.
	The organisation has frequently perpetrated attacks on civilian targets, such as markets, with the intention of maximising casualties. In May 2008, for example, a spate of bomb detonations in the city of Jaipur killed 63, and in September last year an explosion outside the high court in Delhi reportedly killed 12 and injured 65. IM has sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. An example of that was an attack on a prayer ceremony in Varanasi, which killed a child, in December 2010.

Jim Shannon: I understand and wholeheartedly support the reason for proscribing the organisation here, but is it proscribed in India as well?

James Brokenshire: Yes, the organisation is proscribed in India and in several other countries, including the United States and New Zealand. The proscription here will align the UK with the emerging international consensus.
	It is important, in the context of this order, to state that the group is also known to target areas popular with tourists. A shooting incident in Old Delhi wounded two Taiwanese tourists in September 2010, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to detonate an explosive device at the scene. The organisation has also publicly threatened to attack British tourists, so it clearly poses a threat to British nationals in India.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the United States and other countries have also condemned these terrorist organisations. What international co-ordination is there to ensure that if such an organisation is proscribed in one country, it is proscribed in other countries that we see as our allies?

James Brokenshire: I understand my hon. Friend’s particular interest in this subject. Clearly, we need to be satisfied that a particular organisation meets the statutory
	requirements for proscription, which I outlined at the start of my contribution. We seek to draw on information wherever it is available so that we can determine that the relevant steps are met in respect of the statutory tests, thus giving the Home Secretary the discretion to exercise a determination to proscribe an organisation.
	We believe there is ample evidence to suggest that IM is concerned in terrorism, and I believe it is right to add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the 2000 Act. I commend the order to the House.

Diana Johnson: I start by thanking the Minister for his courtesy in having discussions with me about the order. Proscription is serious, and it is quite right that the decision to proscribe an organisation is not taken lightly. The consequences of proscription are very serious, not least because it potentially criminalises the group’s members. Proscription must be reserved for the most dangerous groups where there is clear evidence of terrorist activity.
	Under the regulations laid out in part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, a group may be proscribed only if the Home Secretary believes that the organisation commits or participates in acts of terrorism and the Opposition are confident that there is evidence to support the Minister’s assertions and will support the proscription.
	I would like to ask the Minister a few questions about the Indian Mujahideen. It is quite clear that it is a terrorist organisation. Indeed, as the Minister set out, it has been behind some of the most appalling acts of terrorism of recent years—most horrifically, the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, in which nearly 170 people were killed. The IM also shares responsibility for the general decline in the security situation on the Indian subcontinent.
	It is important, however, to look at the group’s history and to understand the wider movement from which it developed. It is particularly important to recognise the strong links between the IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India—a movement first identified back in 1977. In 1986, the SIMI called for the liberation of India’s Muslims, and evolved into a militant organisation at some point in the 1990s.
	The Royal United Services Institute suggests that the IM needs to be understood as a product of the SIMI. This is important because, as far as I am aware, the Government have not banned the SIMI. Will the Minister explain why the SIMI has not been included in the order? As I understand it, if an IM branch converts back to become a SIMI group, it will not be proscribed and the Government will be unable to act against its members. Is that correct? Will the Minister confirm whether he considers the SIMI group to be a terrorist organisation? We also know of concerns about links between the IM and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has also been known to commit attacks on the Indian subcontinent and has already been proscribed.
	Let me move on to other factors to which the Home Secretary has to give consideration in making a decision to proscribe. The first is to look at the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities. Will the Minister confirm
	whether the decision to proscribe this organisation now is a result of evidence suggesting an increase in the scale of the IM’s activities?
	Secondly, the specific threat posed to British nationals overseas has to be considered. There are many British nationals in India, particularly in Mumbai. Sadly, British nationals have already been caught up in terrorist attacks in India. Does the fact that the Government are proscribing this organisation now mean that the UK Government recognise that there is an increased level of threat in India and to British nationals in particular?
	The Minister has set out evidence of the targeting of UK nationals, and we know that the IM, being active in India, also has a presence in Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. I understand that it uses the porous borders between Nepal and Bangladesh and Bangladesh and India to avoid Indian security on the Pakistan border when it acquires weapons from factions based in Pakistan. May I also ask whether there is any evidence linking that group to forces attacking UK troops operating in Afghanistan?
	Thirdly, there is the issue of the extent of the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom, and the question of whether any specific threat is posed to the UK. Is there any evidence that the IM is active in the UK, or receives direct support from it? Have the Government any estimate of the number of people in the UK who might be affected by the proscription of the group?
	According to a 2011 report by the Royal United Services Institute,
	“SIMI's (and, thereafter, IM's) distinguishing characteristic was that it was, essentially, home-grown. Its activists and leaders are virtually all Indian.”
	Does the decision to proscribe the group reflect a change in its composition? Is there now a greater IM presence outside India? In particular, have links been found between that group and groups operating in the middle east and Europe?
	As I said earlier, there are strong links between IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India. Will the Minister tell us whether SIMI is known to the Home Office, and whether there has been a proper assessment of its activities in the United Kingdom? Specifically, is there any evidence that it has operated in UK universities, colleges or mosques, or within communities? Is there any evidence that the IM has forged links with other Islamic terrorist organisations operating in the UK? As I said earlier, there is evidence that Lashkar-e-Taiba has given logistical support to the IM. Is there now evidence to suggest that the IM has developed links with any other groups? In particular, is there any evidence of links between the IM and any other groups on the UK’s proscribed list, which I think now contains about 47 international terrorist organisations?
	Fourthly, the Home Secretary should bear in mind the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. The Minister has said that the UK is proscribing the IM when that has already been done by some of our international allies: India, New Zealand and the United States. Why is that? Did India ask the UK to proscribe the IM? Did discussions include a discussion of the role of other groups, including SIMI? Will this have any European consequences, and have any discussions taken place with our European allies?
	Today is the fifth anniversary of the first Prime Minister’s Question Time after my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Prime Minister. On that occasion, the then Leader of the Opposition chose proscription as his first topic, using the opportunity to attack the then Government for not proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said:
	“Hizb ut-Tahrir. We think it should be banned—why has it not happened?”—[Official Report, 4 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 951.]
	Five years later, the Minister stated in a letter to me:
	“this is an organisation about which we have significant concerns and their activities are kept under review”.
	Will he explain today why Hizb ut-Tahrir still has not been banned, five years after the present Prime Minister called for such action?

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly why the coalition Government intend to proscribe this organisation. He could have listed, I believe, nine separate incidents in which it was involved between 2007 and 2011. It is clearly a prolific and dangerous organisation.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked a great many questions, to which I can add just one. I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer it—and many of the other questions—for security reasons, but is there any evidence of activity in the UK and specifically of, perhaps, charity work to support that organisation?

Keith Vaz: I do not wish to detain the House, as I know many of the Members present want us to move on. I can tell them that, given what we have heard from the Front Benches, I do not believe that the House will divide.
	When we proscribe an organisation, it is important that we do so carefully, because it is something we do very rarely. Such a move is also almost never opposed by the Opposition. That has certainly been the case throughout all the years that I have been Home Affairs Committee Chair and, indeed, in Parliament—and throughout all the years you have been in Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker. In all that time, I have never known Government and Opposition to disagree on the proscription of an organisation. We will support the Government order because I am sure that the Home Secretary will have taken good advice before proscribing this organisation, and that she will not have taken the decision lightly.
	However, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), was right to press the Minister on a number of issues concerning the operation of the organisation within the UK. The Minister is right: the Indian Government have banned the organisation, as it has conducted a number of atrocities, most recently in Mumbai in 2011. However, I represent a constituency that, on the last census, has more people of Indian origin than any other constituency in the country, and I am not aware of this organisation operating in the UK. The Home Secretary obviously knows better than I, so I am happy to take her lead, but it is important that we proscribe for a reason.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) rightly says we should not act in isolation. The Minister named five countries, including New Zealand, but there needs to be better co-ordination among countries, so that when we ban an organisation in our country, that applies also in other countries in the EU, because it would not of course be acceptable for that organisation to continue to operate in France, for instance, while being proscribed in the UK. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will confirm that we will also be asking other EU countries to make this decision, as well as other international organisations with which we are associated, and that we will act together with other countries that are friendly to the UK.
	My main point goes back to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), however, and it is specifically about proscription. When the Select Committee produced its unanimous report into the roots of radicalism—I note that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), a distinguished brain on the Committee, is present—we were very clear about the issue of de-proscription. We looked at the example of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. It took the then Government to court and it won, and that Government had to allow it to continue. We do not want to go along that path again. There needs to be a clear route for organisations that have become clean, or that have got rid of their terrorist operations—and for their supporters who may support certain causes but who do not support terrorism—to be able to be part of an exercise of de-proscription.
	The excellent independent reviewer, David Anderson, proposes time-limiting proscription, so that Governments have to come back in two years and renew the proscription. The Select Committee has not taken a view on the time limit, but we certainly feel that there ought to be some such mechanism. The Minister has given us an answer, but I am afraid that it is similar to some of the letters I have received from the Home Secretary and other Ministers that use the words “in due course”. I know that when we use the seasons—spring and summer, for example—that can mean virtually anything and I know that “shortly” does not necessarily mean tomorrow, but “in due course” sounds like quite a long time. Clearly this will not happen before the recess, as that is in 10 days’ time, but it would be good to have a timetable so that people know what to expect.
	I raise these issues because of my concern about my constituents who are members of the Tamil community. They still face difficulties in booking halls when they want to discuss Tamil issues because of the ban that remains on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As the Minister knows, the LTTE lost the war in Sri Lanka, effectively all its leaders were killed and the organisation no longer exists. If he wants to take advice other than mine, he should talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and especially to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who is, of course, a member of the Minister’s party and the chairman of the all-party group on Tamils. These members of the Tamil community wish to operate within the law and have no connection with the LTTE, but they still
	have difficulties in raising money for compassionate and charitable reasons because of the ban that remains on that group.
	How do we de-proscribe an organisation that does not exist? Who makes the application when no members of the LTTE are operating in the United Kingdom? Who will write a letter to the Home Secretary to say, “Dear Home Secretary, please de-proscribe us” when the group no longer exists? The previous Government, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I supported—although my hon. Friend was not a Home Office Minister in that Government, so I cannot hold her responsible—were unable to come to this House and say that they would de-proscribe any organisation. How will the Government demonstrate their good faith, therefore, not just as regards what they are doing today, which I fully support for the reasons set out by the Minister—many of which we obviously take on good faith because we have not seen the files—but by ensuring that there is a mechanism in law that will satisfy our constituents in cases such as the one that I have raised?

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, but I want to follow up on the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition.
	I feel that we should be cautious when we proscribe any organisation. As the Minister pointed out, the effect is that anti-terrorist law rather than normal criminal law applies to that organisation, not just in this country but in other countries. It almost ends up criminalising entire communities, as my right hon. Friend for Leicester East mentioned in the context of the Tamil community, but it affects many others too. We should not always reach out to anti-terror laws to deal with our problems in security; we should instead use the criminal law that we have.
	The other effect of banning an organisation from a particular community can be to choke off perfectly open and legitimate political debate and deter people from taking part in normal political debate. It might also have the perverse effect of encouraging some people in completely the wrong direction. We should be more than slightly cautious about that.
	These issues are not new and they have been raised many times. I realise than the Minister probably cannot give a full answer today, but I have asked questions concerning the Anderson inquiry and its proposals. There are a substantial number of organisations on that list and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the LTTE is a banned organisation although it no longer exists, so there does not seem to be a great deal of point in continuing that ban. Will the Minister give us a more specific indication than “in due course” of when he will be able to come before the House with a substantial reply to the queries of many Members about some of the organisations listed?
	Will the Minister also give a strong message to the law enforcement officers in this country at all levels? If a specific organisation is banned, there is clearly a legal
	sanction against that organisation. However, it is not a legal sanction against all members of the community or against legitimate political debate. It is not a legal sanction against normal political discourse but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, some people somewhere hear that the LTTE is banned and therefore believe that all Tamil activity is banned. That is obviously not the case, but it is a message that some people misunderstand, or choose to misunderstand. If the Minister would set the record right, that would be extremely helpful. I look forward to his reply, and I hope that he can give a substantial answer to the report by the Home Affairs Committee sooner rather than later. I realise that that will not be before the summer recess, but if we could at least have an indication that it would be available in early autumn that would be helpful.

James Brokenshire: With the leave of the House, I shall be brief. Important points have been made, and I will reflect on de-proscription and the other things that have been raised this evening. I shall certainly write to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Select Committee, about relevant matters. I welcome support across the House for the measure. Unfortunately, there are a number of things on which I cannot comment because of intelligence and security matters, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand.
	A number of issues were highlighted with regard to specific organisations. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied through the tests that I outlined that an organisation is connected with terrorism, so this is not a step that is taken lightly—it is a serious issue. I hope that the House understands that the Home Secretary has considered the issue carefully and that the IM has been engaged in indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks in India. I commend the order to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (5 JULY)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Thursday 5 July the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of (1) Edward Miliband and (2) the Prime Minister relating to Professional Standards in the Banking Industry not later than a quarter past five o’clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Syms.)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 11 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission: Abolition and Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 23 April 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 22 May, be approved.

Electronic Communications

That the draft Broadcasting (Local Digital Television Programme Services and Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.

Sea Fisheries

That the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012 (S.I., 2012, No. 1375), dated 21 May 2012, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 May, be approved.

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.

Police

That the draft Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved. —(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Energy Agreements Between EU Member States and Third Countries

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13943/11, a draft Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up an information exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements between Member States and third countries in the field of energy; and supports the Government’s efforts to achieve greater transparency in intergovernmental energy agreements, whilst ensuring that the provisions of the draft Decision do not alter the balance of competence between the Commission and Member States. —(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Citroën (Car Charges)

John Hemming: I have a petition from my constituent, Mr D. Pickerill, who bought a Citroën car on 6 April 2011 for which he paid £14,615, although it had been advertised from 1 April 2011 for £12,995, or just under £13,000. He was required to pay the higher price because he ordered it before 1 April, which is really bad practice by Citroën. The petition states
	“Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that fair trade remains a principle of doing business within the United Kingdom; and bring forward legislation to ensure that all transactions in the UK are equitable and that companies, such as Citroën, cannot advertise a product for one price and sell it at a higher price.
	And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray”.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Humble Petition of Mr D Pickerill,
	Sheweth,
	That the Petitioner bought a Citroën C4 on 6 April 2011, which the Petitioner declares was purchased from Citroën for £14,615, but had been advertised from 1 April 2011 for £12,995; further declares that the Petitioner believes that he was wilfully overcharged; and declares that despite the assistance of the Honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, Citroën have refused to refund or properly explain the difference.
	Wherefore  your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that fair trade remains a principle of doing business within the United Kingdom; and bring forward legislation to ensure that all transactions in the UK are equitable and that companies, such as Citroën, cannot advertise a product for one price and sell it at a higher price.
	And  your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.]
	[P001102]

Bus Services in Teesside and East Cleveland

Tom Blenkinsop: The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of East Cleveland and Middlesbrough,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that bus services in Teesside provided by Arriva have been second rate for too long; that buses do not run on time, services have been cut back and rising fares are threatening to price out vulnerable, elderly and young people from using public transport for educational purposes, as a means of transport for work and for accessing health services; and further declares that the Petitioners believe that Government cuts to subsidies for local bus services are making this already poor situation worse,
	The 490 Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse cuts to local bus subsidies and take all possible steps to ensure that improvements are made to bus services in East Cleveland and Middlesbrough.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001104]

Rural Transport (Sadberge, Darlington)

Phil Wilson: This is a petition on behalf of 127 residents of the small community of Sadberge in Sedgefield, who are deeply concerned about cuts to their local bus services. All bus services will be removed from that community at the end of the year.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Sadberge,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that in order to maintain a reliable rural transport network in Darlington Borough additional funding needs to be provided for rural bus services.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that there is funding in place to maintain the provision of reliable rural bus services in the Darlington Borough.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001105]

Navitus Wind Farm, Swanage

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Francois.)

Richard Drax: I am grateful to have this debate on an issue of great concern to people in my constituency and others along the coast. I welcome this opportunity to talk about a proposal that could change the character of our coastline for decades. The Navitus Bay offshore wind farm will cover 76 square miles of seabed owned by the Crown Estate. It is to be located to the south and west of The Needles on the Isle of Wight and will be clearly visible from Swanage, one of the seaside resorts in my constituency.
	The project is a 50:50 joint venture between two foreign firms—the Dutch energy company Eneco and the French utility giant EDF. It forms part of round 3 of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s programme of offshore development, which is designed to generate 33 GW of energy by 2020. Working at full capacity, the wind farm will generate enough electricity for about 800,000 homes. It will create jobs and foster engineering and marine-based skills, and it forms part of a regeneration agenda for some of the most run-down areas on the south coast. Put like that, and in the context of the Government’s enthusiasm for renewable energy, it seems almost irresistible.
	However, Dorset and East Devon’s stunning Jurassic coast is the only natural UNESCO world heritage site in England. The Great Barrier reef has the same status, and if we were to suggest building 300 wind turbines off that, the Australians would tell us in typically blunt fashion exactly where to go. World heritage status was granted to the Jurassic coast 10 years ago in recognition of our glorious coastline, which UNESCO describes as being of “outstanding universal value”. It is a prized designation, and a magnet for 16 million visitors every year. Tourists spend nearly £700 million a year there and support more than 45,000 jobs. And yes, the unspoilt view is key to this success, so why are we considering jeopardising this jewel by siting a giant wind farm just offshore?
	The precise details have yet to be confirmed when the three phases of public consultation are closed in autumn next year, but we know enough to be concerned. The aim is to generate between 900 MW and 1,200 MW of wind energy a year. That translates into a need for between 100 and 333 turbines. Each, depending upon capacity, will be somewhere between 150 and 210 metres tall. To put that in perspective, one of the larger turbines would dwarf the Gherkin in the City. Just one of these giant turbines would be significant; 100 of them, or more if smaller turbines are used, would blight the coastline for years to come.
	Importantly, the proximity of this wind farm to our shoreline totally contradicts the Government’s own guidelines. The Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that such developments should be more than 23 km from the coast. Unfortunately, the majority of this project is inside that limit. Indeed, the closest point is a mere 13 km away. Interestingly, there was, and presumably still is, the possibility of locating the turbines further out to sea. Originally, the Crown Estate earmarked a far larger area for the wind farm. Inevitably, the site chosen by Eneco and its partners is
	the closest to shore in depths of between 20 and 50 metres, which is clearly intended to reduce the cost. That would indicate, rather worryingly, that whatever the result of the public consultations there is little room for manoeuvre. The truth is that Navitus Bay will be too big and too close.
	This is not just nimbyism. Those who think that a simple view should not impede our future energy requirements should think on this: UNESCO considered withdrawing the world heritage designation given to the beautiful and secluded site of Mont Saint Michel in France when it was threatened by just three wind turbines 20 km away. The French electricity firm involved quickly backed down and Mont Saint Michel remains undisturbed, surrounded by a permanent 40 by 80 km exclusion zone.
	I have written to the UNESCO world heritage centre to warn that our own natural world heritage site is in jeopardy. It has written to the ambassador to the United Kingdom’s permanent delegation to UNESCO and to the advisory body of the World Heritage Committee. It has also demanded a visual analysis of the potential negative impact on the coastline. In the visual analysis I have seen, viewed from Durlston, a viewpoint in Swanage, a full third of the horizon is taken up by wind turbines. To be clear, that is the same Durlston that, following a £5 million restoration, is called the “Gateway to the Jurassic coast”. There would be a stretch of water between the land and the wind farm, but the undisturbed and peaceful skyline would be broken by man’s folly.
	The Department of Energy and Climate Change has confirmed that Britain is still dedicated to producing 15% of the country’s energy from renewables by 2020, yet we know that wind energy generation has proved intermittent and unreliable. At peak output, wind farms average only a third of their proposed capacity, so wind energy has to be supplemented by conventional power stations or nuclear energy—not the stuff of green dreams—which are expensive to build and neither is renewable, but they will keep the lights on. Connecting Navitus Bay to the grid would be far costlier than anyone anticipated. The electricity networks’ strategy group reported this year on what it rather coyly describes as “regional connection issues”. Put simply, our networks cannot cope with carrying the extra capacity. The ENSG estimates that £450 million will need to be spent on “system reinforcement” in the south-west, which includes the proposed Navitus Bay development, before any electricity flows.
	Then there is the vexed question of subsidies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has drawn our attention to so successfully. To make wind farms attractive, investors were lured with promises of excessive financial incentives, and 105 Members of this House have already protested against those subsidies.

Christopher Chope: I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and support him absolutely. The 105 signatures actually related to subsidies for onshore wind farms, but we know that the subsidies going into offshore wind are even greater and even less affordable for the taxpayer.

Richard Drax: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to that point and ask the Minister to reassure me that the subsidy withdrawal will also apply to offshore
	wind farms. With households already struggling to pay their energy bills, the financial incentives for investors are almost obscene. The news yesterday that such subsidies will eventually be reduced to zero should deter companies hoping to exploit our energy crisis.

David Mowat: Unfortunately, that news will not apply to schemes such as Navitus Bay because it will not be applied retrospectively, if ever it were to happen. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that, based on the numbers he has quoted, the total subsidy for that wind farm over the next two decades would be in the order of £1.5 billion to £2 billion, which is an awful lot of money for other consumers to find?

Richard Drax: I entirely concur. At a time of austerity, when we are all looking for the pennies here and there to keep our country afloat, this is not a moment to dish out money to, in particular, foreign companies. That is what is so ironic: they are Dutch and French companies, not British.
	To their credit, the companies involved, Navitus, Eneco and EDF, have consulted and are consulting those who live near to or use those waters, and they have promised to take their views into account. Opponents of Navitus believe that the giant turbines will have a catastrophic effect on the environment and on tourism. Millions of people do not flock to our coastline to watch turbine blades go round; they go for peace and a chance to escape this busy world in which we live.
	I worry that our current planning guidelines will not help local people to defeat unwanted wind farm proposals. In a recent reply to my letter, the Minister explained that the Navitus Bay wind farm is a
	“Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the planning act”.
	As such, the project goes straight to the Planning Inspectorate, together with an environmental statement on the potential impact of the wind farm, and that, too, is prepared by the developer.
	The Minister points out that the public may submit their views to the inspectorate, but he reminds me that the wind farm is part of our commitment to meet renewable targets. There is a hint of inevitability about his reply, and I should appreciate his reassurance that the scheme is not a foregone conclusion.
	I fear, as with recent onshore wind farm planning appeals, that we may find inspectors citing renewable energy targets as more important than planning considerations. I sincerely hope that the national planning policy framework amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and by other colleagues in the House—in which we recommend that renewable energy targets should not be used by developers as a reason to override the unsuitability of specific locations, and that the wishes of local people should still be considered paramount—will be adopted in the case of offshore wind farm applications as well.

Jonathan Lord: Perhaps I should declare an interest as someone who has enjoyed sailing off the Jurassic coast. I assure my hon. Friend that this historic and wonderful coast is enjoyed not just by Members and the people of Dorset but by many tourists from miles around, so on behalf of many other south-east
	MPs I support him. It is a valuable resource and a landmark of national importance, and that must not get lost in the planning process.

Richard Drax: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister and the Government listen to him, to us in the House, to the millions of people who live on our coastline and to the millions of others who go down to use it.
	There are other sites, further away and less visible, if such a wind farm is unavoidable, but there are no other natural sites designated as world heritage sites in the entire country. I ask the Government to think very carefully about what they are doing before we blight one of the jewels in our coastal crown.

Conor Burns: It is a pleasure to make a brief contribution to this debate.
	I shall not dwell on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has made so eloquently about the philosophy behind offshore or, indeed, onshore wind, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has also spoken at length in the past, except to say, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Thatcher once did:
	“Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”
	This is a profoundly serious issue for my constituents and, indeed, for the entirety of the conurbation, and that is demonstrated by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—the entire conurbation—are in the Chamber this evening to highlight our profound and real concerns and reservations.
	Bournemouth is well known to Members, who go there for the party conferences and will have all stood in the Highcliff hotel and enjoyed the incredible views across the bay. The bay and the view are the hook on which our local tourism economy hangs. The vital prosperity of our area is dependent on that, and we have profound reservations about this scheme and what it may do to the tourism economy.
	I have extreme concerns about the process of consultation in which Eneco is involved. The initial consultation did not fill us with confidence; it included questions such as:
	“How far do you agree with the following statement?” ‘People have a ‘not in my back yard’ attitude to wind parks’…. How far do you agree with the following statement? ‘I am happy to live close to an offshore wind park if it helps to combat climate change’…How many average households’ energy consumption do you think an offshore wind park can produce in one year?”
	Those are not open-minded consultation questions, but dogma-driven ones.
	We also have real concerns about the inability so far of the company to provide us with real graphics about what the park will look like. The company keeps telling us that it cannot yet do that because it does not know where in the development area the farm will be, how many turbines there will be or what height they will be.
	If the company does not know all those things, I find it strange that it can tell us exactly the quantity of energy the wind farm is intended to produce. When the company does give us illustrative graphics, they are of a dusky winter scene. We want them to show the wind farm at the height of the season on a clear, blue-sky day or on a clear night, so that we can see what it would mean for the area.
	We are concerned about the economic impact assessment. In fairness, the company is seeking to talk to more than 400 businesses, but some are up to 10 miles away from the coastal area. That will not give us meaningful data about the potential impact on our area.
	I close with a simple point, one of the most important that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset made. I would love the Minister to give us a firm and detailed reply. It is about proximity to the shore. Eneco’s preferred site is 7 nautical miles from the coast, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change offshore energy assessment 2 says that new offshore wind farm generation capacity
	“should be sited away from the coast, generally outside 12 nautical miles”.
	The same report goes on to acknowledge that
	“The environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and in certain cases new offshore wind farm projects may be acceptable”.
	“In certain cases”—I find it inconceivable that anyone could judge that an exception could be made for the case under discussion. My hon. Friend talked about the beauty of the Jurassic coastline and I have dwelt on the beauty of our area, which attracts so much tourism.
	The project may be some way off, but our constituents—mine and others across the conurbation—will not forgive us if we do not highlight today the impact that it could have. If it damages our area, our constituents would rightly not forgive those of us sent to this place to stand up for the interests of the areas that we serve.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the latter of whom secured this important debate. I will not detain hon. Members for long as I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
	I echo some of our concerns in Bournemouth. Tourism is our biggest industry. It is the fifth biggest industry in the country, but it is certainly the biggest in Bournemouth. The wind farm installations will be sited 10 miles off the coast. We are supposed to be having a consultation, but we do not know three important things. We do not know the actual location of the wind farm within the upside-down “T” shape that has been given to the company by the Crown Estate. The company has chosen to take the very top of the “T” nearest the land, but we do not know exactly where the wind farm will be.
	We also do not know the height of the turbines—whether they will be 100 metres or just over 200 metres high, and we do not know how many there will be. How can there be a consultation without some understanding of what we are considering and what might appear on our
	doorstep? I am not conceptually against offshore wind farms, but there is a threshold in respect of which they could be accepted.
	People have managed to locate a wind farm 20 miles off the coast of our fellow tourist town of Blackpool, and that shows that such projects can work. There are 102 turbines 150 metres high there, and they provide 370 MW. Three times that amount will be required for the Bournemouth area. If the turbines were situated 20 miles off the coast, well within the identified Crown Estate area, that would work. The argument that the cable that links the site to the mainland would be too long is ridiculous, because the one at Blackpool is 43 km long. We can reach a compromise that will ensure that the wind farms can exist, if that is what these companies want, but also guarantee that they does not affect the tourism that is so important to the people of Bournemouth.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful for the chance to respond to this brief debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and I appreciate the support for their comments that they have received from other hon. Friends. It is clear from their measured and thoughtful speeches that this matter is of profound concern to them and to their constituents. Those of us who know this particularly stunning piece of coastline, which has been enjoyed not only by local residents but by many visitors over the years, know that it is a special part of the countryside and we understand the emotions that lie behind their comments. It is important to say at the outset that no planning application has yet been made. This is an outline proposal on where some potential offshore wind farms can be positioned, but it has not yet moved to being a formal application.
	I hope that my hon. Friends accept that all of us as Government Members agree that the way forward for our energy policy has to be secure, affordable and low carbon. That means having a mix of new nuclear, carbon capture to support coal and gas into the future, and renewable sources. We need to combine that with energy efficiency, which is the cheapest way of delivering energy security. Renewable energy, and offshore wind in particular, is set to be a major part of our energy future. Wind is a low-carbon energy source. It is also a domestic source of energy supply, which means that it will play a role in our energy security because we do not have to rely on imported fuels in order to deliver it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Charles Hendry: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot because I have been given a relatively short time to respond and I want to pick up as many points as I can. If there is time at the end, I will be more than happy for him to contribute.
	When we look around, we see that some of the most energy-rich countries in the world are also harnessing their renewable resources, be it solar power in Saudi Arabia, hydro power in Norway, or wind power in
	Kazakhstan. If it makes sense for them to be harnessing their renewable resources, it surely makes sense for us to do so. For us, offshore wind is a crucial part of that equation because it is one of our most abundant and deliverable renewable resources.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) talked about sailing on the southern coast. The fact that it is such a good area for sailing shows that the wind resource is strong there. That is one of the reasons the Crown Estate identified the area for potential development. Offshore wind generates more energy, and more often, than other technologies, and it is therefore right that we should be considering it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset talked about the designation of the scheme as a nationally significant infrastructure project. That is not a subjective assessment made on the basis of having looked at its merits; it is simply a recognition that it is a scheme of more than 50 MW. Any scheme of more than 50 MW has to go through the new national planning system, but following the changes that the Government have made, the final decisions will be made by Ministers.
	We understand the local community’s concerns about the proposed development. While we are committed to a rapid increase in offshore wind, we need to ensure that wind farms are located in the right places, and that is the purpose of the planning process. We recognise the need to make balanced decisions on the appropriate location of offshore wind farms. We also recognise that we must take account of the views of local residents, and I give that absolute assurance to my hon. Friend. A proposal must take account of the interests of other users of the sea and of the impact on the environment. All renewable energy developments take place within a fair and transparent planning process that allows all relevant stakeholders to put forward their views on the likely impact of a proposal.
	Let me turn to concerns about the site selection process for offshore wind in the context of local sensitivities. Decisions regarding the location of the round 3 offshore wind farm zones, which include Navitus bay, were made by the Crown Estate based on its own analysis of multiple constraints and opportunities. That is a broad zoning aspect. It is then for the planning process to make recommendations on individual applications. It is during the planning process that all relevant stakeholders will have the chance to ensure that their views are heard, including on aspects such as the potential visual impact of a proposal. We all recognise that the environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and neither are the particulars of individual wind farm applications. It is therefore right and proper that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis.
	My understanding is that the developers for Navitus intend to submit an application to the Planning Inspectorate in the autumn next year. The inspectorate will decide whether the application can be accepted. It will examine in detail the application and all the relevant information, including the views of local stakeholders and the local community, before making its recommendation to the Secretary of State for a final determination. I know that my hon. Friends will understand that, as one of the Ministers involved in the determination process, it is not appropriate for me to go into the details of a specific application. However, I want to reassure them of the thoroughness of the process. Their views as local
	Members of Parliament, the views of their local authorities and the views of their constituents will be an integral part of that process.
	I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset that this is not a done deal. That a project is of a scale that makes it nationally significant does not mean that it automatically will go through the process without changes being made. I understand the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West about the nature of the consultation, but that is an integral part of the process. It is important in determining the exact location that may ultimately be developed and the scale of the wind farm. We will try to accommodate the views of the local community. If there is not seen to be a full and proper consultation process, that will jeopardise the likelihood of success.
	I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset about the nature of the process, and about the chance for his and his constituents’ views to be heard.

Tobias Ellwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Charles Hendry: I want to make some further observations, but if there is a chance for my hon. Friend to make some further comments, I will be pleased let him do so.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Minister, may I ask you to face towards me and to speak into the microphone? We keep losing the sound when you turn around.

Charles Hendry: I willingly accept your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people are quite glad when the sound goes off while I am speaking, but I know that in such an important debate the words are all important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset raised the potential impact of offshore wind farms on the
	environment. That was a core part of his speech. The impacts on other sea users and the environment have to be assessed at a strategic level as part of the Department’s offshore energy strategic environmental assessment, and are assessed again at the application stage for each individual project in the environmental impact assessment. The most recent strategic environmental assessment report, which we published in 2011, concluded that at a strategic level, there were no overriding environmental considerations to prevent the achievement of up to 33 GW of offshore wind in the renewable energy zone and the English and Welsh territorial waters by 2020.
	We should be in no doubt, however, that the level of ambition is linked directly to the costs involved. We are working with the industry to ensure that the costs of offshore wind can be brought down significantly. At the moment, the cost is about £140 per MWh; we need to see that brought down to £100 per MWh. The industry ambition of 18 GW by 2020 is absolutely dependent on progress being made in that direction. We understand that that has to happen in a way that works for consumers and the industry as investors. It is worth observing that, last year, there was pressure to push up bills by more than £100 because the wholesale price of gas rose by about 40%. The renewable energy element of a bill is less than £20, or less than 3%. We have to look at these issues in the round.
	The most important message that I can give to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is that this is one proposal, which will come forward in a formal application next year. There will be significant opportunities to ensure that people’s views are heard. I am adamant as a Minister involved in the process that local engagement with the community will be an integral part of that process.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Police

That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 304, Noes 209.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Education

That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 317, Noes 199.

Question accordingly agreed to.